VP Cheney wants plans to nuke Iran

Remove all ads!

I'm confused, does AMaster want us to nuke Mexico?

 

Only the border crossing zones, Snook.

As stated earlier, this could be an intentional leak, just to let Iran know that the contingency exists. Whatever the reason for it's disclosure, there is nothing wrong with the US having plans in place for a nuclear response against Iran, Grenada, Argentina or even the multi-eyed squid people that AMaster is so concerned about. This is not "manifest destiny" in any stretch of the imagination...this is just good business.

 

Of course it is an intentional leak. It is of course meant as a warning to let Iran know they're in U.S. sights.

There are other stories implicating Iran for silly things. First the line 'Iran smuggles bombs to Iraq' (which was exaggerated but still the stuff that sticks). It's all about painting Iran as the new enemy.

As Madeleine Albright said to Colin Powell: "What use is that splendid army of yours when we don't use it?"
When you're the last remaining superpower without rival what restraint do you have except self-restraint? In case of Iraq the U.S. showed that self-restraint wasn't enough, and ironically they have maneuvered themselves into a self-restrained position.

The other thing is that these threats against Iran come at a time when the U.S. is less capable than ever to back them up with anything but airstrikes, conventional or nuclear. The U.S. don't have the troops ready for anything else.

Funny enough, as the U.S. have cut back their contacts with Iran to zero already, they don't have anything else to offer for Iran short of not bombing them.
Insofar, American threats to Iran are only consequent - they are the only option left for a U.S. foreign policy fixated on not talking with evil. Better have a bad foreign policy than no foreign policy at all.

To quote a recent article by Pat Buchanan

And he has a point. One driving moment behind America's foreign policy towards Iran is the desire to safeguard Israel. It is no accident that 'A Clean Break' was written by one of the main propagandists for the Iraq war, Richard Perle.
Unlike Buchanan neo-cons do see America's and Israel's interests in the Middle East as identical. I dissent. And not alone. Neo-con Francis Fukuyama criticises on the neo-cons active in Bush's crew that they have adopted an 'Israeli threat perspective', and that they erred in having done so.

A nuclear Iran could possibly threaten Israel with a well placed nuke, in ten years or so, but would face inevitable total nuclear annihilation in return. In sharp contrast to this situation, Iran does not existencially threaten the U.S., because the U.S. have the strategic depth Israel lacks. So why the hysteria?

The point is that there is much at stake for the likudnik hardliners in Israel and likeminded neo-cons in the U.S.. It isn't so much about an actual threat, it is about the preservation of the status quo for Israel and the U.S., nothing less. I've read about people killing for much less.

In face of this it might be more than just contingency planning.

To hype up Iran as a threat that it isn't, and for what, is what I am concerned about, not some more or less arcane contingency planning.

EDIT: Cleared up some typos and fixed a sentence.

[ August 16, 2005, 02:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

So, are you saying that a nuclear capable Iran would be a stabilizing infuence in the Middle East? Serious?

I can't see that a single additional member of the nucular (spelled especially for Death Rabbit) club can ever be a benefit to humanity. Does anyone really buy the fact that the program is primarily to provide an alternate source of energy? Any idea how much more expensive nuclear power is than utilizing a local, natural resource?

Would it be OK if Iran was developing chemical or biological weapons...or would you view these as an unacceptable deterrent to "US aggression"? Remember, this is from the same part of the world where a well known nutcase used chemical weapons on his own people!

...wait...we put that nut in jail and are bringing him to trial.

nevermind.

 

@ Rags

See, this is where you lost me. Anyone who's been paying attention to the rhetoric coming out of Iran for the last 20 years can tell you that Iran's aggressive stance toward the United States, or anyone less fanatical than they are, doesn't need much "hyping." Niether does their willingness to support and harbor anti-western terrorist organizations who declare "Jihad!" more often than they change their skivvies. They're at the top of our threat list for damn good reason. They do plenty of "hyping" on their own. That you think the US is trumping up a mythical threat from Iran so we have an excuse for an unjustified pre-emptive strike against them is absolutely preposterous.

I'm beginning to agree with some of the others here in that you seem to be determined to see the U.S. in the absolute worst light possible, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And what's more, you seem to think the entire country is in on it as well. And while I find immense value in the perspectives of non-U.S. citizens (especially Europeans) with regard to my coutnry's foreign policy decisions, I can't really see the value in discussing such issues with people who only will seem to be satisfied if we admit "Yes, we want to take over the world. Yes, we're bastards. Yes, we're better than you." That's the distinct impression I've gotten from both you and jaoquin in this entire thread. Don't take that as a personal attack - it's just after over 2 years of reading your threads and giving you the benefit of the doubt, it's really the only conclusion I can draw here.

I mean for Gods sake...you actually think we need to make things up about Iran in order to justify potential - and I do stress potential, not inevitable - military action against them? IRAN!?

I feel like echoing Spelly in asking...don't you guys ever tire of this? Is there ever a day when you've exhausted yourselves trying to find something wrong with us, and you just play solitaire or something?

@ Hack

lol - Nice on the 'nucular' comment.

 

But what if its not just potential? What if there are real plans to act on Iran and as Ragusa points out, they are really looking for just a pretense to act on Iran? I'm not saying that is the case, but it would not be the first time that the intel was hyped to suit the design. And please don't confuse the actions of the few with all "Americans." There are those of us who draw a clear distinction between what kind of Americans we are, and those who are running our government. And to be honest, I think an attack on Iran would be a hard sell to most Americans at this point anyway.

 

Of course, I agree, it would be a hard sell. A damn near impossible one at this point - given the current public opinion regarding the direction of Iraq and the WoT. That's why I'm not very concerned with these contingency plans - the original topic of this thread - because us having them in place is something I'm sure the Iranians would expect already. It was probably leaked to send a not-so-subtle reminder to the Iranians not to f*ck around. Whether it worked or not remains to be seen - the whole "Axis of Evil" idiocy seemed to have the opposite effect, so I somehow doubt it.

As for the intel being hyped to suit a design - while I of course agree that it wouldn't be the first time, I don't think even THIS administration can sell the public the same sh*t sandwich with a smile again and get away with it. We as a nation are weary from this war, and not anxious to see our boys sent off to another conflict based on shoddy (read: "hyped" and/or "exaggerated" and/or "cherry-picked") intel any time soon. Considering who we're talking about here, I don't think any talk of potential military action is out of the realm of realism here. Hyping anything isn't really required, considering a) the country in question is Iran, and b) all we're talking about is being prepared for something to go down. People thinking this isn't justified are either forgetting or ignoring Iran's MO, and their current ties to the very people who've attacked us very recently.

Chandos, you should know me better by now than to think you have to remind me of that.

 

Ah, sorry, DR. That was not directed at you in any particular way, and only those who seem to feel that any criticism of the government is the same as an attack on America in a generalized way. BTW, I was speaking with a Marine about a week ago who commented that he "may be getting orders for Iran." That really may not mean very much, since I've heard this kind of chatter before from other guys in the service. But it gave me quite a pause...

 

Ok, good - I wasn't totally sure the way that paragraph was worded who exactly you were addressing.

I also go to school with an army ranger. He's done two tours - one in Kuwait and one in Iraq - and he's pretty sure he'll be called back again very soon. He also says he thinks Iran is on the horizon, though he said most soldiers he knows hope that it'll be avoided for a while. They think the army is stretched far too thin right now - in both logistics and morale - to make an effective stab at Iran. Another interesting thing he told me is that moving on Iran was more of a sure thing earlier in the war, when everyone was sure we were going to win and democratize Iraq smoothely. Now, two years later, most honchos on the ground there are signing a very different tune. So it's probably unlikely that Iran will happen any time soon now that the PNAC's plan to establish Iraq as a launching point in the middle east has proven to be a stupid - or at least very poorely thought out - strategy. How Wolfowitz still has a job is beyond me.

 

I noticed that some people are calling this a US bashing thread, but what about ROW (Rest of the world) bashing:

I assume that because these people are from Iran, that they can be just called mere collateral damage, and not a thought to innocent life that was lost, after all I would never refer to 11th September as collateral damage, and I am sure those Iranian 'farmers' would share the same opinion as me.

To be honest I see nothing wrong with the US having plans for attacking Iran, but only if this means that Iran is the aggressor(unlikely), but then again, Iran should have plans for a possible US invasion and no-one can criticize them for this.

 

Since it was me who said that, I'll address it.

It doesn't matter where the people are from who are killed in such an event - tragedy is tragedy, civilians are civilians. If you're saying I think it's ok to kill innocent people to achieve a military objective then you are gravely mistaken. What I'm saying is, if I knew that I had the chance to prevent a terrorist organization from blowing up a building and killing thousands of people, and I would do this by blowing up a secret weapons factory (hopefully with the terrorists still in it), yet the flipside is a few dozen innocent people get killed in the process, then I would feel duty-bound to carry out that mission. I probably wouldn't be able to forgive myself for the deaths of the innocent people, but then if I stood by and did nothing I would allow the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people - deaths I could have prevented - how would I forgive myself for that?

Also - I don't think you're understanding the context of the term "collateral damage." You can't refer to September 11 as collateral damage. The terrorists WANTED every person in that building dead. They didn't have a grudge against the World Trade Center buildings themselves. If they did they would have attacked at night, to minimize the innocent human life they didn't wish to directly target - aka, "collateral damage." No. In the case of September 11, there was no collateral damage. Everything they destroyed was absolutely intentional. Can you understand the difference?

Though it may have sounded heartless for me to refer to innocent people as collateral damage - for which I'm sorry if I offended anyone - it doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what they are.

If the U.S. blows up an Iranian weapons factory and 100 farmers die unintentionally as a result, while tragic, it still doesn't change the fact that the farmers weren't the target even though they were killed. The factory was, period. It also doesn't make it OK to kill civilians, but what else can I say? Sometimes doing something horrible is required to do something necessary. Call me a heartless bastard, but that's how I feel. Sometimes doing the right thing just sucks. But that's life, isn't it.

 

That is the key question to the whole dispute here.

What actually, except that Mullahs are bad, makes you think so? One could, bellicose rhetoric aside, take a breath and try to assume for the sake of argument how bad Iran would look if one considers them sane and rational for a change. As soon as one accepts the option they might be rational, a few rational arguments come to mind:

U.S. intel said Iran is approx ten years away from a bomb. Let's assume they are right for a change.

Even Iran's oil supply is finite. One day they will run out of oil. Oil is Iran's only cash cow. It might be more prudent to sell it than to use it up for yourself. Ironically, not selling it would be seen as agressive in the West as it would drive up the oil price.
In any case, to have a working nuclear power plant is a prudent precaution as it allows you to gather experience with a technology you might depend on later.

Why ist the common presumption that Iran's program can only have a military purpose? Dogma: Because they are evil and say nasty things about America all the time. And because they are evil they lie when they say they aren't. With this line of thought you deliver yourself into a circular argument where the result is pre-determined. A bad starting point for a rational foreign policy dispute.

I'm playing devils advocate here as I find the smug shrug 'Hey we're just planning, playing with the idea, of nuking Iran' creepy and cavalier.

Any other nation declaring it makes up plans to nuke the U.S. - of course in all friendship and a very unserious way - just contingency planning - would be viewed in the U.S. as an agressor. The U.S. doing the same thing, isn't. Her cause is always just. And certainly it is so more often than not -- even the neo-cons blunder with good intentions.

In this world there is action and reaction, and unintended consequences. For a change, try to look for the possible consequences of U.S. actions.

When one recalls the cold war the Russians were at times so scared by Reagan's agressive course and rhetoric that they feared a NATO first strike during 1982s Reforger exercise. And while the U.S. only showed off their good intentions and their determination, the Russians were an inch away from the nuclear trigger, misunderstanding their opposite.
Escalated, that misunderstanding could have led to a hot war in Europe and my as premature as nuclear death. But we were lucky.

These dangerous side effects that sometimes come with U.S. aid still can't take away the fact that we still owe the end of the cold war to a good deal to the U.S., as we Germans do owe them and Britian and France and Russia our re-unification. We do not forget that.

However, when your neighbour gets himself a shotgun and holds it high over the fence to show it to you and your family, noting: "This one I bought for you because I know you and your ways!", that doesn't inspire mutual confidence and trust, even if you are an a****** and the neigbour may have a point. That's the implicit problem with neo-con policies.

France leaking it has plans to nuke the U.S. would cause a uproar and the familiar France-bashing in the U.S. Nuclear threats are *always* serious. When the U.S. makes nuclear threats that's prudent policy?! If others do the same thing it's naked agression??!

One easily forgets how cooperative Iran became after 9/11. With some goodwill the U.S. could have broken the stalemate by trying to make a peace. But then, they knew they were evil, right?

And that wouldn't even have been a first time that someone wanted to surrender to the U.S. but the U.S. refused. Libya wanted to surrender for years and only was allowed to do so a few years ago. Oh I forget, that was because Ghaddafi was so afraid because of Saddam's fate
It was all about the Lockerbie settlement.

When Reagan could call the U.S.S.R. the 'evil empire' and still talk with them, why can't the Iranians call the U.S. an 'evil empire' and still be a dialogue partner for the U.S.?

I agree that we have nothing to gain by another nuclear power, and that the world would better off without nukes is as self-evident as illusional. I'm not even happy with Iran's nuclear program. But face it - they are allowed to do what they do, and as long as we have no proof of Iranian intent to violate the NPT we have to leave it at that.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and cannot ever be brought back as soon as sovereign nations remain sovereign and as long as there is mutual distrust and national interest. Israel will never disarm. India and China are unlikely to disarm. The U.S. most certainly will not disarm.
One key to prevent further nuclear proliferation is to build alliances, like putting nations under the U.S. nuclear umbrella as they did in the Cold War after some kicking and pulling from Europe. We haven't seen much of that under Bush II. A Japan confident that the U.S. will protect them, doesn't don't need nukes of their own to deter China or a nuclear North or even re-unificated Korea.

The alternatives for policy towards Iran are the classical choices between confronting, rolling back, and dealing with an enemy. The neo-cons, true to their roots, have chosen roll-back as the only tool in their repertoire, even though 'detente' has probably been at least just as successful a tool of U.S. policy.

I personally think that the non-binding U.S.-Russian declaration on civil liberties (forgot the name) that only was to be published in all newspapers in the eastern block did more to cause internal unrest and the eventual internal collapse of the Soviet Union than any arms project the neo-cons hectored to bleed the Russians dry.

Heck, the neo-cons even saw the Russians fooling the west with their display of weakness in the days of their collapse -- just playing dead men in order to fool the naive U.S. (the State Department in particular),. and to then -- HAR-HAR! -- cowardly and Pearl-Harbor-ish stab them in the back.
Richard Perle even wrote a fiction book about such a scenario, titled, no kidding, 'Hard Line'. He could have as well dubbed it 'The world through my eyes'. Neo-cons are as rooted in their paranoid doctrine as fervent commies in theirs, like that silly uncle of mine from Leipzig.

During the cold war I used to think of the Russians as evil and three metres tall. They had all the silly plans and that silly rhetoric. And then, all of a sudden they shrank to human proportions, got a face and didn't look half as scary from a close. When I had one of these evil people as a guest in my house I was almost disappointed that he was basically, well, o.k.

If the U.S were able to talk to Russia, or Libya, why not with Iran, too?

Oh, I get it: Too evil.

[ August 16, 2005, 15:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

OK, DR, I must say I disagree on a few things with what you said.

"Anyone who's been paying attention to the rhetoric coming out of Iran for the last 20 years can tell you that Iran's aggressive stance toward the United States, or anyone less fanatical than they are, doesn't need much "hyping."
Rhetoric, in the field of politics, is one thing; actions are another. Apart from the kidnappings at the embassy some 25 years ago, Iran has taken few aggressive actions against USA. As for the kidnappings themselves, I would view them as getting a safeguard against possible counter-coup by the Shah's loyalists backed by US resources, from military intervention to CIA support. And considering that the USA was one of the countries arming and supplying Saddam when he invaded Iran and fought it for eight years, it is quite likely that in that country, anti-US talk will be a normal method of legitimizing the government. After all, it would equalize showing support for the victims and survivors for a desperate war of defense. Don't forget that while it may be true that Iran has supported various anti-US groups - peaceful or not, the opposite is also true - the USA has supported most anti-Iran groups, and there have even been some cases in the 2000's - Iran complaining how a terrorist group (also considered such by FBI) was given shelter in Iraq.
So does Iran have a grudge? Possibly, but it's been over 20 years. Is it so unreliable to do something like not only getting a nuke, but actually using it in aggression against the USA or key ally? I'd say no. The administration in Tehran does not suffer from mass lunacy, or it wouldn't have lasted so long. No matter if the person who flies the plane/drives the truck/carries the briefcase is a wide-eyed fanatic, the bosses know they'll be the ones getting the payback. For the last 15 years I don't remember an open Iranian act against the USA, or even a discovered covert one. So this might seem like taking a chance, but I highly doubt that they'd try now. Especially as one of the greatest tensions in the region, that has been the official casus belli against Israel for the last 60 years - occupation of Palestinian territory - is at a new low. The USSR, a country with much greater chances of success and mouthing an ideology that certainly rivaled Islam, had an aggressive stance for some 40+ years, and had nukes all that time. It didn't use them. In case you'd argue about the importance of religious fanaticism - one can be made fanatical about any idea, and communism has certainly inspired many fanatics.
As for Iran being completely opposed to any country not as militantly islamic as their own, well, it's not all there is to it. Iran has always had a very negative rhetoric for the USA and Israel, which it perceives as allies (hardly surprising, isn't it?). Frankly, I've never heard of Iranian ranting against Sweden - it's Christian, it's capitalist, and it's one of the places of greatest female emancipation, among other things. Or the Netherlands - surely a society running against every tenet of Islam, much more so than the US. Mohammed was against usury, but I'd be surprised if any Iranian has ever expressed their defiance over Switzerland; I wouldn't be sure if the people there even know where it is. It's not for Swiss fanaticism, certainly - they haven't taken a stand on anything for some 2 centuries now, how's that for fanatical?
At the end of it, if the USA is planning a strike, conventional or not, against Iran because Tehran has decided to build facilities allowed to it by the NPT, that is incorrect in my book. If there is any proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons, it should be presented. Anything else - citing a danger for the peace and balance of power, or how restrictive and unpredictable Tehran is - is just speculation. Prevention and preemption can be very useful terms to justify aggression. At least with retaliation you have a reason to fight.
Afghanistan was a retaliation from my point of view - and the key word of the phrase you yourself said "won't be doing that again" is "again". Al Queda attacked the USA, and the USA struck back with a vengeance. The talk I saw was about retribution and preventing "further" acts - but when you speak of "further" that indicates your concern with "past" such.

 

No problem Mr Rabbit, but its a pity that not everyone shares your views:

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

 

Ts, ts... We are taking a stand on everything. We just are to polite to rub it under everyones nose or to small to get noticed.

Incidently, islamic countries know Switzerland pretty well. At least better then others do. As a remainder of old school conservative and true christanity, people from islamic countries are quick to point out, that traditions and rules of christanity and islam are pretty much the same, by indicating the land of the white cross on bloood red. Actually, there is one that even took the Swiss legal code. A wise decision, indeed!

And usury. Another common ground. Since Thomas of Aquin, we are all trying to escape the harsh word of god and the biblical stance on interest by inventing allowances and decductions. And we both, islam and christanity, go the way of bending the word until following it doesn't make sense anymore anyhow. But is it pure and mere ideology that so many countries of christian provenance still have laws against usury in place ?

And I don't like the concept of equating a religion to a idelogy. A religion is a grocery store, not a scheme for organising modern political entities.

And we are raging against the very tenents of Christanity in the Western world... At least there are many christians who say so.

But I share your views that Iran is not a predator on the prowl, rather a country entangled in it's on domestic problems. But there is another not answered question about. Do countries like Brasil, South-Africa and Malaysia have the right to have nuclear facilities for peaceful and/or military application ?

 

Sorry if I might have seemed insulting, Iago. I meant not that Switzerland, Sweden or Holland are terra incognita east of Turkey, but that no one seems to dislike them as much as, say, the USA.
Aside from that, religion is not simply equal to ideology - but a religion carries its ideological charge, and it is very easy to create an ideology (or even a few different ones) out of a religious text. Religion is much more than an ideology, but an ideology is formed around every religion in every community. Besides, an ideology need not be a "scheme for organizing modern political entities". I mean this word as the set of ideas and world-views present and used in some community. It is only natural that religion will have some something to do with that.

 

Another aspect, that I hinted on earlier, is that the spectre of a nuclear Iran is primarily a consequence of U.S. miscalculations, your average blowback, as this excellent article in the Asia Times points out

If that isn't *grand strategy* genius at work And the neo-con solution? By the book, go the hard line: Oh sh*t, we screwed up, now we have to nuke them to save the day, or at least threaten to do so to have any impact at all.

The U.S. threats towards Iran are nothing less but a covert admission of an abysmal failure, an implicit admission of impotence, spun as being *tough* on an evil country

As I hinted on earlier, those in the U.S. applauding for or finding sensible tougher measures or agressive planning, even war on Iran, are quite oblivious to the consequences of such a policy, and the consequences the disastrous U.S. policy under Bush II. already had on Iran's nuclear program.

Actions have consequences, and stupid actions have silly consequences. After all, and it isn't so as if the sh*t in Iraq and Iran simply happened to the U.S. -- that's the excuse of a five year old child.

I'm still not sure if Iran has a nuclear *weapon program*, but if they do, the U.S. have to blame no one else but themselves.

As for the contingency planning: Comments on that along the line 'to me it seems prudent, considering how evil Iran is' really ruin my day. There is a little more to that issue in my opinion. To nuke Iranians for an American mistake seems somewhat ill conceived a strategy in my eyes.

What if America had offered Iran a hand after 9/11 and restored diplomatic relations? They cooperated with the U.S. against the Taleban in Afganistan, even allowed U.S. troopps to operate from Iran -- quite a concession. A potential nuclear weapons program, and mind we talk about potential in ten years, would certainly not be the problem today.
Well, the neo-cons wanted to go to Teheran. Diplomacy was not an option, it doesn't give you the laurels of war, no unconditional surrender and no free hand. For that reasons it wasn't even considered, not grandiose enough - it would have been about normalisation not revolution in the Greater Middle East. Not glorious enough for big-thinking neo-cons.

Bush's neo-cons don't negotiate with evil, they defeat it. Or sort of. Like in Iraq.

Bleh.

 

Ragusa,

Are you actually going to respond to any of the posts directed at you in this (or any other) thread, or are you just going to keep posting lengthy ravings as if SP were your own personal blog?

I'm beginning to think that actual discussion of the issues is irrelevant to you, but rather the captive audience SP provides. To wit, you never seem to start discussions in the vain of understanding or debate, but rather to tell us all how naive we are because we don't know "the truth" like you do. Do you even realize that that's how you come off, or don't you care?

 

Zing! Bam! Pow!

Whoops, wrong post -- I was quoting from Batman (the series).

 

I would like to say that my posts was replies to other posts, not the fact that the US has contingency plans. As has been noted previously, every country has all manner of contingencies.

What sparked my "anti-american" rhetoric was the, in my perception, willingness of some people to use such plans and the, again in my opinion, often general sharp divide on the value placed on American lives contra any other humans by many Americans.