I have a few quick thoughts about Iran.

1. Beware of the bait-and-switch trick the administration likes to play. They deliberately over-estimate the budget deficit. Then when they come in way under their bloated estimate, they point to how much they’ve cut the deficit. They may be floating the nuke option so they can demonstrate how “reasonable†they are by bombing the snot out of Iran with conventional weapons.

2. Bomb-making material is relatively small and easily dispersed. Iran could hide centrifuges just about anywhere, for example. Moreover, the technology is needed to make a fission bomb just isn’t that hard (and is getting easier all the time). It simply is not possible to prevent a country from developing nukes through bombing alone. Bombing may set Iran back a few years (or not, if they are moving equipment around even now), but it will certainly convince the Iranians they need nuclear weapons. Just look at North Korea. We don’t push them around.

3. The consequences of even a conventional attack will be bad. I don’t want to dwell on that part, because sane people understand that. It is worth pointing out, though, that the administration was very wrong in its intelligence assessment of Iraq. Before the 2nd Iraq war, we had been flying over the country for a decade. We knew a good bit more about Iraq than we know about Iran, and much of it was wrong. We are likely to be more wrong about Iran than about Iraq.

Hellllpppp!

If you follow wackos like Kevin Phillips, the Bush family and the Iranian hardliners seem to have benefitted from their association.

What was the October Suprise? Supposedly a deal worked out to delay the release of the hostages to nuke Carter’s chances in ‘80.

Then there was Iran Contra.

Now a great deal of what we do in Iraq seems to redound to the benefit of the Iranian hard liners.

Glad I’m not suspicious.

Yes to what you have written, Pach, and yes to shargash’s first point. It really needs to be stressed that nukes probably won’t be used against Iran, but ‘conventional’ mega-ton explosives will be - and people will supposed to be relieved and ‘thankful’ that it’s ONLY another premeditated, inexcusable, unwarranted attack by the US on a country that is not and will never be a threat to the US. ( Juan Cole is extremely good on this topic, see his latest posts.)

There should be a Senate resolution to the effect that any previous authorization to use force is NO LONGER OPERATIVE.

quick and painfull is the only bush option ???

After all we’ve seen, are you willing to bet your life and the lives on your children on the proposition that Bush is posturing as part of some well reasoned strategy?

Pach: thanks for using the Futurama image! One of my all-time fave shows, and it couldn’t be more apt.

And thanks for the message. It’s exactly what we need.

Pachacutec!

Great post on a very serious subject. Let’s make Congress hear us.

porco rosso,

not sure where you are going with that, but I see it more as a non-conspiratorial Vonnegut-esque Cat’s Cradle than anything purposeful. Each nation is necessary to the self-myth of the other.

As for shargash point one, I mentioned the same thing before today, and I have to tell you, I WOULD be relieved if it we just engage in a conventional bombing with cruise missiles. We will then collectively be just criminal, not beyond redemption.

nobody says #5–’There should be a Senate resolution to the effect that any previous authorization to use force is NO LONGER OPERATIVE’

and unconstitutional and illegal. Hamstring the bums. Let them come to the people, not the politicians.

I have just read an article by R J Eskow on the Huffington Post about Hillary Clinton being to the right of Bush on striking Iran. Have you anything on this?

There may be a handful of Republicans who will oppose El Incompetente on this, but only a handful. They’ll dummy up until the fait is accompli, and then reap the electoral advantage of an ignorant electorate who will fear gay marriage and Mexicans even more than they fear nuclear war.

don’t forget, the US is testing a mega-ton conventional weapon in Nevada in June. Is this part of the sabre-rattling? And how close is the date of the test to YKos 06?

Porco Rosso –

You’re right. There is (and has been for a long time) some fundamental hinkiness in the relationship between the Bushies (and before the 2 Bushes, Reaganites) and Iran. It’s always confused me deeply.

The recent example (which never got “resolved” in anyway) was Chalabi and the US gov’t official who was supposedly drunk and revealed that we broke Iran’s code. Yet none of the Bushies showed they were upset with this revelation in any way.

This was sort of EPU’d:

This whole pre-emption isn’t like taking out Hitler in 1935, before he bame a major threat. Don’t let them pull off some bogus Chamberlain-Churchill dichotomy. It’s not 1935, it’s 1940, and Bush isn’t deciding whether or not to be Churchill, he’s deciding to be Tojo. The model Bush and Newt are emulating is not brave Churchill, it’s cowardly Tojo and his Pearl harbor pre-emptive strike. They’re trying to replay WWII as the wrong goddamned side.

Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike. For Bush to propose a Pearl Harbor (nuclear or otherwise)on Iran is shameful. It dishonors our WWII veterans. It’s un-American.

And, it’s bad policy. Ask yourself–why are there nukes in the first place? What was the impetus for developing nukes? It was Pearl Harbor. A doctrine of pre-emption was what unleashed the nuclear whirlwind. And the country that did Pearl harbor last time had it rebound on them. With nukes.

OT — Here’s an example of how the WaPo spins a 7% increase in just three weeks of Americans favoring impeachment of Bush: “Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans.”

“Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of independents oppose impeachment.”

But as Froomkin points out:
But it’s worth nothing that both the censure and impeachment numbers are up a bit from a Newsweek poll from just three weeks ago. In that poll, 42 percent supported censure, and 26 percent supported impeachment.

TGFF (Thank God For Froomkin).

Here’s the HuffPo article on Hillary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....18984.html

divine strake is planned for June 2, i think and YKos starts the 8th?

GREAT job, Pach, and it was really neat talking w/folks today. What I like best about FDL is not merely the sense of community, but the fact that we as a community seem to get things done. Not only has the WaPoo budged twice (or is it three times, I forget), but a certain venerable Senator from the Bay State may well have heeded the suggestions of some Fire Pups. Now, faced with the potential end of the world as we know it, and not wanting to leave the future of this overheated orb to the occasional cockroach or two, we simply must all get going here and do our thing.

Your life may depend on it. Mine, too.

The concern in this family is that knot-head Bush has some sort of messiah complex in that he is fulfilling biblical prophecy and in the process is starting “the war to end wars”. Last nights supper conversation in this house revolved around megalomania and possession of nuclear ability. We think it’s really imperative to begin impeachment proccedings and send a message that America is still in control of its faculties. If it isn’t already too late, that is.

Pach, I agree with the major points of this post, but the framing of the article in terms of nuking Iran is the wrong frame. It is not simply a case of nuking Iran being catastrophic, but a case of any kind of pre-emptive attack being provocative in the extreme and likely to result in dire consequences throughout the Middle East and here in America. Even an attack of the refinement facilities of Iran with conventional weapons may well bring on World War III, but nuclear weapons will almost certainly accomplish that.

No, the proper frame of reference is that the United States, acting in concert with allies, needs to pursue a policy of containment and diplomacy. The time to do it is now, while the ramp-up of nuclear capability in Iran still gives us time.

Perversely, the longer Bush delays going to the table with diplomacy rather than the nuclear threat, the more time it gives Iran to covertly advance any nuclear aims they may have. Playing this game of chicken, there may arrive a point in time when Bush (or his succesor) may feel we have no choice but pre-emption. At that point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, the proper frame to advance our cause is not to fight against the nuclear option as an isolate issue, but to fight any form of pre-emptive attack under the current circumstance.

To rush to the streets crying “NO NUKES” is the wrong frame. It should be “NO WAR IN IRAN.”

It makes me so sick and angry I can’t see straight. I heard Sy Hersh interviewed on NPR’s “Fresh Air” today and he said that in all of the administration’s contingency plans for attacking Iran, absolutely no effort has been made to predict or study the possible impact on the civilian population.

The neocons and all of their minions are dangerous to our nation and the world. I only hope that I live to see justice served and that our country can survive their reign of error.

hey cleter, I already gave you props for that — are you getting greedy? :~)

I think it’s important to note that this whole Iran attack thing is a major objective of the whole PNAC policy. The reason BushCo wants to do this is to force regime change. It’s not their potential nuke capability, anymore than Hussein had WMD ready to blow the mushroom cloud over the planet that was the impedus for ’shock & awe’. That’s the fear stimuli that worked the last time with Iraq. They’re delusional enough to believe that it might work again (I sure hope we’re past that) for their Iran adventure!

Bottom line, let’s not forget to recognize the focus they have and the basis for the rationale. So they will do anything it takes to follow through. It’s very serious and very scarey. I just believe they are hell bent and it’s going to take more than fighting off the fear mongering. The true motives have to be exposed and debunked or we’re all in a world of hurt!

orangejumpsuit
At the protest, there should also be signs that say WE DON”T DO PEARL HARBORS. And a bunch of American flags.

I’m not sure I can accept point #2. I wish everyone would step back and ask why we need to negotiate with and impose sanctions on Iran? They are not a threat. They do not appear to have territorial ambitions, aside from a completely understandable desire to keep first Iraq and now the United States from invading and occupying them.

Why is it “disasterous” if they somehow learn to make nuclear weapons? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to a target, and it has not been a disaster yet. Korea has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them, and no disasters yet.

The fundamental “give” to the PNAC agenda of conquest in the Middle East, that there is some danger to us in allowing Iraq and Iran to exist as sovereign nations with nuclear power generating plants, is the thin edge of the wedge.

Cleter,

But let me add, that the added insight about nuclear weapons being originally developed as an antidote/response to pre-emptive war (either Pearl Harbour or the Sudetenland and etc.) is a brilliant addition to your original post.

Why the emphasis on nuclear? What about a regular war with regular strikes, is that good for you?

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue, Pach. Watching ABC News tonight, we saw that Bush and Chee-Knee at a 4-months span both spouted the same lie about the Iraqi sand toilets despite knowing they’d been debunked.

The BushCo web of corruption is desperately trying to distract from their total fuck-up in Iraq by saber-rattling with Iran at a time when that tactic is most guaranteed to provoke dire consequences on all sides.

A wise person once observed that you don’t make peace with your friends, you make it with your enemies.

But as long as Big Oil has a stranglehold on all of us, there’s scant hope of peace.

Kudos today to the GM exec who said on Imus that E85 is just fine…maybe the big car people are starting to realize Big Oil is their worst enemy as well.

Kudos today to Prince Harry (and the British Royals) who shows more stones at his young age than the feckless Preznit and Shooter combined.

And remembering with great regard Rev. William Sloan Coffin, a true warrior for peace.

Hillary Clinton is courting AIPAC (the American Israeli PAC), and AIPAC and the neocons believe that our striking Iran is in Israel’s best interest. Most Democrats are firmly in AIPAC’s pocket, Republicans slightly less so, though the wingnut Christian Zionists certainly like the idea of helping along Armageddon (I am serious here). So you will certainly see Schumer, Emmanuel, Obama, ….. all in favor of attacking Iran, just maybe not with nukes. I personally do not want to see us hit them with anything other than intelligent diplomacy but cannot imagine who in the present administration could possibly conduct it.

And yes, Bush’s grandfather helped finance Hitler and his father was up to his eyeballs in Iran Contra and best friends w/Osama’s papa, so the Iran connection doesn’t surprise me in the least.

” Iran is ten years away from the ability to develop weapons grade uranium. It possesses no nukes today.”

That’s not what Condi said today. She is reported to have said they could have nukes within 16 days of sufficient centrifuging.

Ignorant bitch.

Divine Strake at 700 tons of high-explosive will be the largest conventional explosion ever attempted. This is less than 1 kiloton - I’m not sure if the smallest tactical nuke can even be dialed-down that weak … The nuclear bunkerbusters in the US arsenal are case-hardened hydrogen bombs than can survive a drop and burrow a meter into the ground. Much of the blast is transferred to the earth but it kicks out a large crater and beaucoup fallout into the atmosphere.

Sy did a great and expansive explanation for his New Yorker article and includes recent developments on Democracy Now today.

‘What’s amazing, Amy, about this is this, and what always surprises me about my country is, here we have a president that doesn’t talk to people he disagrees with. And anybody who’s been around little boys, big boys, knows that when they get out of control, you grab them. If you’re a nursery school teacher, you grab the little four-year-olds by the scruff of the neck, and you pull them together, and you say, ‘You two guys, shake hands and make up, and go play in the sandbox.’

Bush doesn’t talk to people he’s mad at. He doesn’t talk to the North Koreans. He didn’t talk to the insurgency. When the history is done, there were incredible efforts by the insurgency leaders in the summer of 2003. I’m talking about the Iraqi insurgency, the former Sunni generals and Sunni and Baathist leaders who were happy to see Saddam go, but did not want America there. They wanted to talk to us. Bush wouldn’t. Whether it got to Bush, I don’t know, it got in to four stars. Nobody wanted to talk to them. He doesn’t talk to the president of Syria; in fact, specifically rejects overtures from al-Asad to us. And he doesn’t talk to the Iranians. There’s been no bilateral communication at all.

Iran has come hat-in-hand to us. A former National Security Council adviser who worked in the White House, Flynt Leverett, an ex-C.I.A. analyst who’s now working at Brookings, wrote a piece a month or so ago, maybe six weeks ago, in the New York Times, describing specific offers by the Iranians to come and ‘let’s deal.’ Let’s deal on all issues. I’m even told they were willing to talk about recognizing Israel. And the White House doesn’t talk. And it’s not that he doesn’t talk, it’s that nobody pressures him to talk. There’s no pressure from the media, no pressure from Congress. Here’s a president who won’t talk to people he’s walking us into a confrontation with.’

full article here and imho, worth the time and effort to read:
http://www.democracynow.org/ar.....12/1359254

Re: conventional threat

I don’t support it as policy, but can imagine it as posturing in the context of negotiating international peace.

This post was crafted to enlist wide support while propelling a dynamic of oversight.

WP has a followup to the trailer story. Doesn’t look like they are backing off. The fact that Snottie McClueless won’t tell when the WH knew about the report is … telling. There is smoke there. You cannot tell me that all those anxious phone calls and faxes and pressure that team was under … that none of that came from the WH. Dig a little deeper, MSM. You will find it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01789.html

Prairie Sunshine,

Big fan of Rev. Coffin here. One of my favorite stories about him, {according to my friend} upon hearing that Lieberman was a reform Democrat and an Orthodox Jew, Coffin quipped, “He would be much better off as a Reform Jew and Orthodox Democrat.”

seaside –

Yes! It was an important thing for you to point out, and we mustn’t lose sight of it. Iran being next was part and parcel of the large-scale PNAC “plan” from the very beginning.

It is a bloody horror to me, but not a surprise. This was always going to be the next “step” — taking down Iran. And after Iran it will be Syria, and after Syria what was it, Libya? I forget now, have to go back and re-read the PNAC “manifesto.”

We need to scream loudly about the PNAC game plan, how this was all plotted back in the nineties. STILL, not enough Americans know about the neocon “agenda” and it’s for damned sure that not enough journalists write about it. When will the networks cover the history of PNAC?!?

when Iran gets up to what the US thinks it will, then Iran will take 16 days to churn out enough sufficiently purified U235 to build one weapon - in other words: 20 bombs per year.
How many, dear Condi, does Israel churn out per year?

I am going to take a page from Bill Maher and declare a NEW RULE:

New Rule: Presidents may not deploy nuclear weapons if they cannot properly pronounce them.

Amen.

BTW, give Joby (the guy who broke the trailer story) some love here …

http://projects.washingtonpost.....y+warrick/

That’s not what Condi said today. She is reported to have said they could have nukes within 16 days of sufficient centrifuging.

Ignorant bitch.

Or a lying bitch. She did get a PhD in Soviet (remember them?) Studies in the late 70’s. One would assume she knows better than that tripe. At least she should.

If there is any attack on Iran, the US will be so hated none of us will ever be able to travel ever again. It could well be the final act of hubris which comes before the inevitable fall.

The Dems can’t be allowed to make this about protecting Israel. The US has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate Iran within minutes of a strike on Israel - and Iran knows it. That is what Bush and/or the Dems should be saying.

Remember MADD? I never thought I would see the day when it would sound so sane, which just goes to show how insane the world has become.

And thank you Pach for a great post!

pach -
thank you so much for this post. i have a slightly different take that comes from 1) wanting to learn from our iraq experience - no more wars of aggression; and 2) recognize the importance of international laws - and bring ourselves back from lawlessness to to being leader in supporting laws and agreements such as the NPT.

here’s my version:

1. Starting a war with Iran is seriously nuts.

2. Strength comes from leadership. We must recommit ourselves to the NPT - including living up to our own responsibilities under the NPT. We must join our allies in direct negotiations with Iran. We must advocate publicly for a nuclear free middle east.

Americans must unite to demand bipartisan opposition to a first use nuclear strike.

beth meacham says:
I wish everyone would step back and ask why we need to negotiate with and impose sanctions on Iran? They are not a threat. They do not appear to have territorial ambitions, aside from a completely understandable desire to keep first Iraq and now the United States from invading and occupying them.

I think you’ve nailed it…We should not allow Bush, PNAC, or any of the other crazies frame this debate. They should be forced to explain from first principles
1) Why is a nuclear Iran a threat to the US?
2) Why is Israel allowed to have nukes?

Great post, Pach. People who have never taken political action before should think really seriously about doing so now. We could wind up in the middle of WWIII, our leadership is so very clueless and detached.

Pay your Senator a visit. It’s never been more important.

thank you thank you thank you

excellent. there is absolutely NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. check out 3 new iran posts

Not Nuclear. Not conventional. Not air strikes. Not special forces. No attacking Iran, period. Stop. Yes, write your congressmen, senators, and friends. However, I am afraid that this will not be enough. I live just outside DC. Feel free to come to my house and we will descend on the Capitol and the Mall to stop the madness. Go look up “Bonus March” to see what a real protest can do.

Before you even think about trusting Bush for one minute, ask yourself this question: If Iraq had gone as well as the administration thought it would, do you think we ALREADY would have invaded Iran?

We are the people, and we will stop the next war!
peace,
jim

Not only ask why is Iran a nuclear threat to the US of A but also discuss that the US of A is the biggest nuclear threat going…pot and kettle and all converging….

Pach, thanks for a great post. After reading it, imo FDL may be best positioned to take a role with respect to the 180 centrifuges and the fact the WH is cherrypicking the intellligence as per usual. Iran is no where close to becoming a nuclear threat.

FDL can hit the WaPoo’s blog about Juan Cole’s and other’s informed opinions. John Harris has a chat tomorrow as does Dana Priest. When we say, this is “Iraq” all over again, I don’t know if we understand how correct we are. FDL’ers have learned together about National Intelligence Estimates (NIE’s). The Leaker-in-Chief stated that he “declassified” those, because he “wanted people to see the truth” about Iraq. Great Georgie, since you want us “to see the truth,” declassify these NIE’s.
IMO where you, Christy, and Jane have great skills is in sharpening a message that FDL’ers will bring to the corporate media and to our elected officials.
IMO it’s possible that a synergy will exist between our message on the 180 centrifuges and the non-threat that Iran poses, and our long standing attempts to expose the complete incompetence of the Leaker-in-Chief’s administration.
I am constantly amazed by the political dexterity of Christy and Jane, so I am just putting this out there as a brainstorming idea. You tell me what to do, to the best of my ability, I, and a lot of other FDL’ers will follow through.
From Juan Cole, commented earlier today by many:
“Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches”*
Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran “going nuclear,” the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they “cascade.”
The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.
The crisis is not one of nuclear enrichment, a low-level attainment that does not necessarily lead to having a bomb. Even if Iran had a bomb, it is hard to see how they could be more dangerous than Communist China, which has lots of such bombs, and whose Walmart stores are a clever ruse to wipe out the middle class American family through funneling in cheaply made Chinese goods.
What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.
Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush’s poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again….”http://www.juancole.com/
Immanentize and Prof ???? had some great comments about this on a Christy thread earlier this am.
Also, I thought shargash was right on target wrt “bait and switch.” I also want to vouch for immanentize, however, he made the same comment this am.
*Christy put up a pic of a florescent Mickey Mouse watch this am in honor of Cole’s comments.

whoops those 3 new posts are on billmon’s they are not printing for some reason

I have sent e-mails to my two senators and house member making the points Pach has outlined. I encourage all to do the same. We must stop the insanity.

Whoa. From a new Wapo article on the trailer lies:

The White House sought to further rebut the Post article with a series of “Setting the Record Straight†statements e-mailed to reporters. In the statements, the White House does not deny the existence of the technical team’s report but portrays it as a preliminary finding, contrasting that report with a public white paper put out by the CIA on May 28, 2003. The CIA paper described the trailers as the “strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.â€

The White House provided a “link†to a CIA Web site where the white paper is still posted, nearly 18 months after its conclusions were refuted by the Iraq Survey Group.

The White House statement also cites the 2005 Robb-Silberman commission report on intelligence failures related to Iraqi weapons. That report criticizes the intelligence agencies for “bureaucratic resistance to admitting error†as evidence showed Iraqi weapons claims to be unfounded. (My bold)

What’s happening on American Idol?

pach, maybe you should add an update link to your ‘lets talk senator’ thread for people who didn’t sign up last time.

We have enough countries in this world without the US actually being one.
I’m very worried the rest of the world will look at our words and our behavior and simply decide to back away from us, as we might when approached by a crazy person on the street talking to radio transmissions only he can hear.

IRAN: CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR (online)

IRAN: CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR (pdf)

Earth Penetrating Nuclear Warheads against Deep Targets:
Concepts, Countermeasures, and Consequences.(pdf)

Bunker Busters: Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate [PDF]

Thank you Pach

Btw it might have already been asked - I haven’t caught up with the comments - Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? Why is Iran so uniquely unsuitable to have nukes, as opposed to, say, George Bush or Kim Jong Il?

Given that I’m from Georgia and my Senators are Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, it seemed a bit of an exercise in futility, but I did e-mail Isakson (Chambliss is pretty much a lost cause). I may e-mail my Congressman, too, but he is Nathan Deal, and he once lied to my face (while he still called himself a Democrat, no less) about his support of the Line Item Veto (I said I was against it and he agreed, then voted for it). Hopefully they will get more messages like mine.

American Idol? are we going to be Moses or Aaron?

Sheeesh what’s the link limit? I posted 4 all of them vital info. now in moderation and as I don’t spam I’d like to know the limit so as not to do that again.

Wilson (I am reclaiming the right to speak “W” in your name)

I wish we could be Job.

I am very glad that we are going to take action on the threatened attack on Iran. We must speak up loud and clear and do it now.

I would suggest that we demand a resolution by the Democrats in Congress to block funding for any attack on Iran, nothing less. And we need to make it clear that we will not vote for any politician who does not make this a bottom line of their foreign policy position.

We must remember a few things:
1- we already have troops in Iran according to Sy Hersh so we have already violated Iranian territory
2- the carpet bombing of Dresden did as much damage as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima acc to several sources
3- the issue is not simply nukes but pre-emptive war

I say this as someone who spent a long time on anti-nuclear efforts, esp the anti-Trident campaigns. I am particularly concerned about a potential nuclear strike but only slightly less concerned about a conventional strike. While the long term effects are lessened, the immediate death and destruction of either choice is a horror. Our cold war strategy was not pre-emption but MAD - mutually assured destruction. Bush’s choice of pre-emptive war as his prefered strategy is a significant break with all past policy and is also a violation of international law.

William Sloane Coffin was a giant of a man and his book Uncomfortable Pews remains a very good and inspirational read. I had the honor of meeting him several times and attending the ordination of a dear friend by Rev Coffin - would that we still had his voice today!

There’s a big difference between being opposed to a conventional strike, and wanting it publicly taken off the table. Many people wouldn’t sign up for the latter. I think Pach has put together a nice set of points that can garner wide support, and which Senators can take seriously.

“To rush to the streets crying “NO NUKES†is the wrong frame. It should be “NO WAR IN IRAN.”
ojs, I like the direction you are headed in. IMO using the WH’s own tactics of deceit against him: “Mr. President, please release the NIE’s” might be preferable.
If we can get the corporate media (and the Congressional Intelligence Committees to nail/ask Snottie McMuffin technical questions about the number of centrifuges, and the wind patterns of dust (either nuclear or not, that dust is going to so some damage)…., that Snottie cannot answer, I think we will be “killing two birds with one stone,” just like the WH did when they outed Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings.
I do agree completely with you, however, that “no nukes” is too diffuse an attack for FDL to marshall.

BC–Bucky finally off!

seaside, 25 said:

“The reason BushCo wants to do this is to force regime change. It’s not their (Iran’s) potential nuke capability..”

I agree, its the WMD ploy all over, or as Yogi said, “It’s deja vu all over again.” At least he is consistent in his MO.

The thing about the 16-days-to-nukehood is so comical I wonder why they are even trying it. Now comes nuclear-weapons expert Condi endorsing the idea. Granted that 10 years is an awfully conservative estimate, some expert observers think 5, under the right conditions.

So what are the “right conditions?” Look Eastward for help. Bush would be awfully stupid to ignore Russia and oil-hungry China as players at this table, and don’t forget Pakistan which just happens to be the first Muslim nation in the nuclear club. But Bush is doing everything he can to drive Iran into the embrace of the East.

I’m utterly opposed to either a nuclear or conventional strike against Iran as I’ve made clear in blog commentary back to 2003.

However, I think we should be as careful about tossing around lines like “Iran is ten years away from the ability to develop weapons grade uranium.”

That ingredient is highly enriched uranium, and the National Intelligence Estimate, pieces of which were leaked in August, makes the 10-year assessment. But this is a guess. And given the notorious inability of our intelligence agencies to predict the arrival of the Indian Bomb or Pakistan Bomb, I recommend caution when putting forward this claim. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the NIE, and nobody knows for certain how long it might take Iran to start producing HEU or stockpile enough of it for a Bomb.

It’s bedtime for me. Can’t stay up to check for the latest filing.

I’m including a link to the brainless abnormals at JOM who keep refreshing Pacer with fervent frenziness.
This is a Team Libby filing, after all.
Since TM is away I don’t expect that the anticipated brief will get a host unless someone directs Jeralyn to it.

Anyhoo, good night and good luck to all the lil’ doggies.

http://justoneminute.typepad.c.....ing_o.html

To Join FDLers in the Roots Project

1. Put your home state (nothing else!) in the subject line of an email to pachacutec01 at gmail dot com

2. include your commenting name or dkos user name in the body of your email

3. be patient while I append you to an existing group or wait for enough people to form a new state group.

By doing this, you can connect with FDLers in your state for local action, lobbying, and perhaps for visits to your congresscritters’ offices.

Professor Foland, sorry I mentioned you above, but forgot the Foland part. Thanks for those great comments this am about plutonium vs uranium and other technical issues.
Also, I see markfromireland on the thread, IIRC, mark was the early voice in calling our attention to this issue.

When did containment magically quit working? That seemed to work fine against the USSR, and they had a gajillion nukes. And crazy leaders like Stalin.
Can someone please explain to me why Iran is a bigger deal than the goddamned globe-straddling, several-thousand-nuke-owning, ICBM-wielding Soviet Union? And what makes Amini-whatsisname worse than STALIN? We didn’t nuke freakin’ Stalin! Why should we nuke Whatshisname?

orangejumpsuit - Iran and Pakistan are most emphatically not friends.

an informative page of nuclear warhead counts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ar_weapons

Russia still has 7200 nukes
the USA has just 5735
one 10 megaton bomb can annihilate Indianapolis

And I completely agree with John Casper’s take. “No Nukes” is the wrong approach.

John Casper — great summary and thanks. I agree that there is a chance that Bush’s bluster gambit will backfire on him and just re-iterate his dangerous incompetence. I am speaking with a WH insider tomorrow and will report what dirt I get dished. Prof. Foland is the most knowledgable fellow around on the technical nuke stuff. Maybe we could get up a weapons/ Nuclear non-proliferation treaty primer sometime (soon?).

You speak from my heart, Mister. My comment is pre-written, composed in a small European country in the middle of the night because these developments leave me speechless. For all of you there radiation contamination is sort of an abstract concept. What is below is my personal experience:

What worries me, out in a small European country, is the current seemingly decided decision to nuke Iran.

Emphasis on ‘nuke’.

Ever hear of what WIND can do? Well, it is pretty amazing. Like you wake up one morning and everything outside is full of red sand. Got sucked up into the stratosphere and dumped on us in northern Europe–all the way from the Sahara desert. Cool, huh?

Or one day twenty years ago now, when you wake up and the radio is telling you not to go outside, keep your windows closed, and downtown all the first produce of the season is being taken off to be destroyed by health department officials. And a few days later you get to see dandelions that are KNEE-HIGH and the stalks measure about six inches at the base? And where even now, well, you don’t eat mushrooms from certain areas unless you NEED your daily dose of Cäsium 327?

THAT is what wind can do, and it was from Tschernobyl. And we weren’t even that close.

We have had a noticeable increase here in cancer since. And no one gives us statistics. Have read that the UK has measured an increase in enriched uranium levels in their soil thanks to the Iraq war. Where I live, no data.

So my humble suggestion is–

Yeah, you got issues, you were lied to, deceived, and dumped on. But if what Hersch says is even close to what is planned, you better get yourselves organized and fight that option NOW.

Because I do NOT want to see anyone on this planet have to be in that situation and feel that sort of helplessness in any way shape or form.

And no, corporate people won’t care–because they’ve probably GOT their bunkers.

It is really time to put an end to this craziness.

Just sayin’

MB:

I’m aware of the ambiguities, though the consensus, from what I can tell, is closer to ten years than ten months.

But the crux of the message here is to propel a dynamic of oversight, and the argument would still hold without an insistence on “ten years.”

Perhaps I should post an update.

Yah - me, meteor blades (kudos to you on that mb) cole, a few people. Believe me I think I speak for everyone when I say this is one party where we’ll embrace every latecomer with fervour. Effing blogger blogger is down or at least the server that hosts my gorillas guides is down or I’d post a heap of other links. There are times recently when I actually feel physically sick.

They told us we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq…That we’d be welcomed with roses.
Not.

Now they’re saying we would be greeted as liberators in Iran. Allowing the populace to rise up against their oppressors.

Same song, second verse.

Sharkbabe, indeed, we are the only superpower who has launched a pre-emptive war and a couple of nukes in modern times. Why trust us? I would personally beg my leaders to protect me however they deem necessary from our might, if I was sitting in my living room or what was left of it in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever else. If we continue to defy the world’s treaties, including the nuclear nonproliferation treaty– why should anyone respect us as a moral compass? We already have violated all the other treaties we were signatories to and refuse the others that a majority of the rest of the world adheres to — Kyoto protocols and the International Court of Justice.

“In the April 17 issue of New Yorker Magazine Seymour Hersh has an eye-opening piece that quotes Administration insiders who suggest nuclear war with Iran is a serious option. You had written back in October of 2005 that “The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago.” What led you to that conclusion at that time? What do you think of the Hersh piece?

“Jorge Hirsch: Of course the Hersh piece is extremely useful in bringing this issue to the forefront of public attention. However already several months ago an analysis of the facts led me to the conviction that a deliberate decision had been made to use nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the US pursuit over several years to get an IAEA resolution against Iran, no matter how weak, which it finally achieved in September 2005. It didn’t make any sense as a diplomatic move if the goal was to exert pressure on Iran, in view of the clear dissent by Russia and China. It had two purposes: one was to bring the issue eventually to the UN Security Council, even knowing that Russia and China would veto any action against Iran, so that, just as in the case of Iraq, the US could argue that other countries share its concern but not the resolve to act. But more importantly, the US issued a commitment to the UN in 1995 that it wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries signatories of the NPT, which however explicitly excluded countries that are in “non-compliance” with the NPT. So by securing the IAEA resolution of September 2005 of Iran’s “non-compliance” the US achieved that it can now use nuclear weapons against Iran “legally”, i.e. without violating its 1995 commitment. This explains why it was pushing for it so adamantly.

Furthermore the US has radically changed its nuclear weapons policies since 2001 to erase the sharp line that traditionally existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It now “integrates” both types of weapons in its military strategy, and envisions the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities, preemptively against countries “intending” to use WMD’s against US forces, and “for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms”. Several scenarios like that, that apply specifically to the Iran scenario, were made public in 2005 in the Pentagon draft document “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations”, to prepare the country for what was being planned.

Furthermore, the administration has been pushing Congress every year to fund new nuclear weapons, “more usable” nuclear weapons, and bunker busting nuclear weapons, to prepare the public mind for the attack. Many are under the mistaken impression that Congress has resisted these efforts, however they forget or don’t know that the B61-11, a bunker-buster that can be used against Iranian underground facilities, is in the US arsenal since 2001. Its yield (power) is classified but is likely to include very low yield, to cause “reduced collateral damage” and thus be more “acceptable”.

Furthermore, as I pointed out several months ago and is also mentioned by Hersh, the administration is stacked with nuclear weapons experts that are hawks and participated in the formulation of the new nuclear weapons policies: National Security advisor (Hadley), deputy national security advisor (Crouch II), undersecretary of defense for intelligence (Cambone), chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board (Schneider), undersecretary of state for arms control and international security (Joseph) and ambassador to the UN (Bolton). Bolton was appointed in the face of very strong bipartisan opposition. None of these positions require specific nuclear weapons expertise, however these “nuclear warriors” are in high positions for a reason: to advise President Bush to use nuclear weapons. And let’s not forget Cheney, who was the architect of new nuclear weapons policies back in 1992 to target non-nuclear-weapon countries, and Rumsfeld who advocates a smaller high tech military where nuclear weapons play an essential role.

It also became clear to me that there is a long-term advantage in the view of advocates of America’s “preeminent role in the world” (PNAC) to use nuclear weapons against Iran: to establish the credibility of the US nuclear “deterrent” against non-nuclear countries that pursue courses of action contrary to US interests. The Iran situation lends itself to a scenario where the US use of nuclear weapons will appear to be “inevitable”, under the conditions that have been created by the US carefully and methodically over the course of several years for that purpose. Finally, I believe President Bush has embraced the breaking of the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons as his personal goal, to be his lasting “legacy” that will overshadow other “accomplishments” of his administration.

Reat the rest @ http://www.zmag.org/content/pr.....3;>Read the rest.

BTW I agree with meteorblades and john Casper - everything I’m getting from the US is that the no nukes won’t float. That’s to your shame but that’s where you people are at right now. RenB amen brother and hello from copenhagen.

Professor Foland @ 63 -

after thinking further about it, i’ve changed my mind to agree with your point about the importance and feasibility of publicly taking the nuclear option off the table.

but, i don’t think we have to ignore our objection to starting a conventional war - we can do both - demand that a nuclear first strike is taken off the table AND voice our opposition to starting a war with iran…. that is what i was trying to do with my modified list above (43).

International Court of Justice.

Just a clarifier — we are still signatories to the UN convention and therefore member states before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — it is the International Criminal Court (ICC)that we spurn and work against.

could the Bush administration be getting advice about nuclear capability from the same folks who are informing them about global warming? not only is the policy/diplomacy shot to pieces but I’d bet they don’t understand/believe the science re: radiation, fission, etc., etc.

Let’s look at the Bright Side. Attacking Iran is politically attractive in a number of ways. First, it would precipitate conditions which require the declaration of domestic martial law (energy and food rationing), and it would allow elections to be postponed until there’s a better time.

Most importantly, attacking the AntiChrist in Iran would follow the script of the apocalypse as laid out in the Left Behind series, and would further solidify support amongst Bush’s “Base.”

Have YOU earned a spot in BushWorld?

why doesn’t the Preznit just wait until victory in Iraq before he starts a fresh war against Iran ?

Extra! July/August 2003
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150
The Great WMD Hunt
The media knew they were there–but where are they?

By Seth Ackerman

[THIS IS JUST THE END SECTION OF ACKERMAN’S 2003 ARTICLE, PERTAINING TO THE “TRAILERS OFMASS DESTRUCTION”. FOLLOW THE URL TO READ THE WHOLE SORRY STORY]

“Given that no serious evidence of ongoing Iraqi production capability ever turned up–especially after inspectors returned last year [2002] and were given unfettered, no-notice access to suspected sites–there were few grounds for assuming that Iraqi retained a significant WMD capability.

“Another clue reporters missed: Weeks before the war began, the transcript of Hussein Kamel’s 1995 private briefing to U.N. inspectors was leaked and posted to the Internet (Newsweek, 3/3/03). The interview revealed a crucial fact that the Clinton and Bush administrations, which both promoted the defector’s story as evidence of an ongoing Iraqi WMD threat, had long neglected to mention: Kamel told the inspectors that all the weapons had been destroyed. Coming from the head of Iraq’s secret weapons industries, a source the Pentagon, CIA and U.N. had all praised for his intelligence value, the revelation should have been front-page news. Instead, it was barely covered (Extra!, 5-6/03).

Centerpiece or hot air?

“Having suffered a series of public humiliations from the conspicuous absence of unconventional weapons, the administration made it known that it was pinning its hopes on two trailers found in northern Iraq, which they termed mobile biological weapons labs. On May 12, NBC News correspondent Jim Avila, reporting from Baghdad, declared that the labs “may be the most significant WMD findings of the war.” Joining him was hawkish former U.N. nuclear inspector David Kay (now an “NBC News analyst”), who was flown to Iraq to perform an impromptu inspection for the cameras. Armed with a pointer, he rattled off the trailer ’s parts: “This is a compressor. You want to keep the fermentation process under pressure so it goes faster. This vessel is the fermenter….” In his report, Avila didn’t explain how and why Kay and the NBC crew obtained access to the trailers while the legally mandated U.N. inspection team, UNMOVIC, had been barred from looking at them.

“The trailers quickly became the “centerpiece” (New York Times, 5/21/03) of the administration’s argument that Iraq was indeed hiding a biowarfare program, and Bush himself used them to proclaim (5/31/03) that “for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.” No actual biological agents were found on the trucks, though; nor were any ingredients for biological weapons. In fact, no direct evidence linked the trailers to biological production at all.

“U.S. officials said the trailers’ equipment was capable of making such agents. Even then, the unconcentrated slurry that resulted could not have been put into a weapon: “Other units that we have not yet found would be needed to prepare and sterilize the media and to concentrate and possibly dry the agent, before the agent is ready for introduction into a delivery system,” the CIA’s report admitted (5/28/03).

“Iraqi scientists who w