Plans for Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Sites Well Advanced
The Guardian reports that “US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage.” Sources told The Guardian‘s Ewen MacAskill that the military build-up in the Gulf allows “the U.S. to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.”
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.
Article continues
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: “I don’t know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran.”
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources’ assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. “Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place.”He added: “We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous.”
Joseph at Cannonfire, David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo both fear / believe the article at The Guardian to be factually correct. David writes:
You can come up with a laundry list of reasons why attacking Iran would be a disaster, and you can come up with a decent list of reasons why the Administration is presently constrained by circumstances from doing so (not enough troops and hardware, for example). But you’d be hard-pressed to come up with any good reasons for why this Administration would be constrained by either circumstances or potentially disastrous outcomes. Besides, do these clowns still deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Indeed, there are many reason not to attack Iran, but there are also many reasons to believe that an attack is necessary to stop the Mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons and to limit the negative role Iran plays in the region.
As I wrote before, I believe that the Bush administration / the international community should continue doing what it’s doing right now. All reports indicate that isolating Iran works. However, the U.S. and European countries should be willing to use force against Iran if absolutely necessary.
We should also remember that nuclear weapons aren’t the only problem. There is much more. It is also about Israel / Palestine. It is also about southern Lebanon, etc.
If the U.S. and European countries are not willing to use force against Iran, Iran will not change its policies, of that we can be quite sure. And if one threatens to use force, one should be prepared to use it (if absolutely necessary).
Although I am a ‘hawk’ it is my opinion – after reading all the information that came out about Iran the last couple of weeks – that attacking Iran right now would be… not merely unwise, but absolutely stupid. It is not necessary right now. An attack against Iran will, even if it is just against its nuclear sites, spark anger throughout the Muslim world. Ahmadinejad will most likely gain support immediately although most Iranians disapprove of him right now, etc.
This Spring? Still too early. Again, the sanctions are working. Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Its economy is suffering. The extreme extremists who are now in power, represented by Ahmadinejad are losing popularity. Some reports indicate that the Mullahs might be willing to compromize, etc. I’d say continue on this path. Threaten to use force, but don’t do if it is not absolutely necessary. Weakening Iran might just do the trick. Focus on that but be prepared to use force if solid intelligence indicates that Iran is getting dangerously close to developing an atomic bomb.
10 Responses to “Plans for Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Sites Well Advanced”
I’d be more worried if they didn’t have any advance plans in place. The fact of modern military planning is that you keep plans for all kinds of scenarios, and keep them “freshened up” to reflect current events. And if you don’t have assets in place, threats (subtle or otherwise) are hollow, and pointless.
Actually using those assets is a different story. But the posturing requires them.
MG – Bombing Iran will produce exactly the opposite effect of getting them to stop work on Uranium enrichment and involvement in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine. Bombing will NOT lead to regime change, the Mullahs in Qom will still be control even if Ahmadinejad is killed or tossed overboard. Nuclear work will continue hidden in the mountains and terrorist activities will actually increase. Iranians are ultra-nationalistic people and bombing them might set back their nuclear program a few years but at a terrible cost.
Their economy will be ruined but so will the rest of the world with oil running $150-$200/b and the 1930′s will be revisited. The only way military action would be effective in Iran is a massive 1,000,000 + army invasion and occupation. Odds = 0%.
Trully agree with totally. They always have advanced planning in place.
I hope and pray that we do not bomb them for the sole reason that its proven time and time again that with these type of people that will solve nothing.
We have to work with sanctions. Santions worked so well that Saddam Hussein could not even make bombs and chem weapons because of these sanctions. But the world needs to get on board with this.
Without the world its once again the USA looking the bad boy trying to keep the entire world from burning and doing a bad job of it.
MvdG – Thanks for a post without the hyperbole of your fellow blogger.
This is not good. The very fact that a possible strike at Iran is talked about so much is making tensions rise. What we need is for tensions to be lowered, before someone on either side makes a rash decision. When everyone is nervous, the slightest thing can trigger a fatal move.
I think the whole world is afraid of what the US is capable of doing. It’s high time for our daministration to start working on rhetoric that lowers the temperature.
Good analysis.
Of course we have to have contingency plans for Iran. And a viable threat of military action is something that might cause the Iranian leadership to re-think its desire for nuclear weapons.
Or, of course, it might make their leaders feel more strongly about acquiring them in the name of self-defense–especially if we’re unwilling to negotiate with them.
So I’m kind of a bind here. I think a credible threat is helpful in dealing with Iran. Do I think the Bush Administration’s threats are credible? Holy God, do I ever!! But do I think they’re wise enough to draw that line properly? Absolutely not!!
And yet…somehow that makes the threat even more credible…which I think is a good thing.
But…good sense…absolutely not.
Whoever thought up the curse, “May you live in interesting times,” knew what he was doing.
George, I think you draw the dilemma rather well. A credible threat is necessary, but the Bush administration has a historical tendency to let the credible become the real in fairly short order.
I do take some comfort from Gates, though. He is not Rumsfeld and, in many ways, is the anti-Rumsfeld. (Doubters should read his book, particularly the chapter on Nicaragua, for insight into how he may advise running Iran and Iraq policy.) As long as he says that no attack is imminent, I’m inclined to believe him. Also, critics should keep in mind that the Bush administration has been multilateral in regards to Iran in all the ways it has been unilateral in regards to Iraq.
jdledell and domajot have nailed it as usual. We have a fallacious notion that enough force (or the threat of it) will bring Iran to its knees, and they will give up their nuclear ambition. The more we threaten them, the more they will unite against us. Any reform movement will be crushed, because they know we are hoping for regime change. They will try even harder to make mischief in Iraq, as that reinforces their status as a regional power.
[...] However, like it or not (and some of the bloggers I link to below don’t) airstrikes / threatening to use force seems to work. As I wrote a while ago: ‘If the U.S. and European countries are not willing to use force against Iran, Iran will not change its policies, of that we can be quite sure. And if one threatens to use force, one should be prepared to use it (if absolutely necessary).’ [...]
[...] However, like it or not (and some of the bloggers I link to below don’t) airstrikes / threatening to use force seems to work. As I wrote a while ago: ‘If the U.S. and European countries are not willing to use force against Iran, Iran will not change its policies, of that we can be quite sure. And if one threatens to use force, one should be prepared to use it (if absolutely necessary).’ [...]