*bangs head at the stupidity of it all*

[jebbypal]

Nuclear option to prevent Nuclear proliferation in Iran

Yep, you read that right. About the only thing that this article does do is provide a little bit of reassurance that right now strategy is leaking out of the White House rather than being quite as hidden prior to the Iraq war. (And let me say, I support the troops and admire them, but I don't agree with many of the stategic decisions being made for their use).

Scariest quotes from within the article:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership inthe Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran isgoing to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the Presidentbelieves that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected inthe future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran isgoing to be his legacy.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues forthe Bush Administration, told me that the military planning waspremised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran willhumiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up andoverthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it,and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similarview. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problemis to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said.The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief insideIran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclearcapability.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training andlearn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking aboutmushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination overyears. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see isthe earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, andwhenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclearoption—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to thenuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of theJoint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked aboutresigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to removethe nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—withoutsuccess, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said,‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

---

My question to all this: Why the hell does the administration not employ a qualified advisor on Arab, Islamic, and Iranian culture? All you have to do is look at the past 20 years to see exactly how the current Iranian (president and clerics) leadership will respond to strong arm tactics. And the Iranian people aren't going to be too appreciative of it either given that they have a front row seat to Iraq.

Insane. I keep looking at the calendar and praying that today is April 1. No such luck. Instead it's just another day in the current administration that we have to survive for another three years...unless legal occurences actually manage to take down the whole one-brained administration and prevent a Delay-ite from assuming power.

Comments

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

two things. first, here's another perspective. (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/04/going_nuclear_s.html)

second, as perspective is all, i ask a question. do you have any friends that are from Iran? i do. my best friend, in fact. and her family. her very large extended, now living all over the world because they are Christians, family. they escaped the insanity that was the late 70's takeover, and then they spent the next 20 years helping to get every single other member of their family out of that country. the expat Iranian community in the US is, wait for it, largely republican, and don't disagree with the assessments about Iran seeking nukes. know why? because they get all that news first hand, in their own language. they watch it on the local Iranian channels and they listen to the Iranian radio broadcasts, and they keep in touch, and read the papers from home.

they lived there, they understand the culture and the understand the very real threat.

loathe the President all you want, and think he's an idiot all you want, but don't for one second assume that Iran's mullahcracy is anything other than violent and a serious threat to the world.

[jebbypal]

No, I don't currently have friends from Iran.

I agree that the mullahcracy does present a threat and that the current president of Iran is a step backwards in security for the world at large.

However, I believe the current tone of talks coming from the White House, issued independently of the UN Security Council, is not conducive to any sort of progress and only serves to support the message from Iran's president that they must have nuclear weapons to prevent an attack from the Great Satan. Also, by not seeking to work with the other Islamic states in the MIddle East on this problem, we're not winning hearts and minds anywhere.

Finally, I bought into the message that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because they had weapons of mass destruction. To hear the same story with no concrete evidence again, especially when we're overstretched and far from stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't make me less nervous.

My post wasn't in support of Iran or it's government, and I resent the implication that it was or that I'm ignorant of it. Rather, my post was showing that the White House is continuing it's go it alone strategy and not listening to the information coming out of the Pentagon calling for more diplomacy and less arrogance.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

to believe that the United States is the only government discussing Iran in this manner would be stunningly naive.

In the past several years, we have often seen bizarre positions emanating from Paris on matters of foreign policy. Even with all of that, it was surprising to hear French President Jacques Chirac's statement last week that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests.

source (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060125-095139-5283r.htm). that's not France saying they'll retaliate against terrorist attacks. that's France saying they will NUKE anyone that SPONSORS terrorist acts against French interests. i'm thinkin' that should concern a whole lot more people than it apparently does...but since it's not the US, then it's not a problem.

as to the War, while i won't debate it with you, [you have every right to feel whatever you feel] do keep in mind that Hussein violated the cease fire agreement - itself legal justification for invasion - from the first Gulf War; and the US was supported worldwide - until the goalposts were moved - by UN Resolution 1441. that resolution was passed unanimously.

something else to consider is the transparency of how government works in this country, which is a good thing. so you read something, whether it's accurate, completely in context, or not, and you can then voice your opinion to your elected representatives as to whether you believe that's a good idea for the government to be considering, or not. that's how the process works. have you called your elected representatives, btw?

the other thing to keep in mind is that, wacky thought, people outside the US read our papers and watch our news. speaking in so confrontational a manner could simply be posturing, with an end game of peaceful resolution. bullies don't back down if they don't believe you can righteously kick their ass.