The Third World War – Cancelled
![[Al-Hayat, U.K.]](http://cartoons.courrierinternational.com/illustrations/dessin/2007/12/i804371205Haddad.jpg)
Does the Bush Administration have some explaining to do, after America’s combined intelligence services concluded that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been halted since 2003? According to this op-ed article from Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau, ‘Bush’s October speech about the danger of a Third World War was at the very least, reckless. … Then it also follows that the plan to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – which also carried an emergency stamp – was not only rationally unjustifiable, but ideologically motivated.
“It’s been clear all along that Iran had put its nuclear weapons program on ice. Can we seriously imagine that lord rulers George W. Bush and Richard Cheney didn’t know the slightest thing about it? … the Bush Administration owes its European allies an explanation.”
By Karl Grobe
Translated By Julian Jacob
December 4, 2007
Germany – Frankfurter Rundschau – Original Article (German)
With two sentences, the united spy agencies of the United States have annulled Washington’s Iran policy. First: The Teheran regime stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003; that is four years ago. Secondly: The Iranian leadership decided to do this on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
The report has spent at least a year in one of Washington’s secret drawer. And it’s been clear all along that Iran had put its nuclear weapons program on ice. Can we seriously imagine that lord rulers George W. Bush and Richard Cheney didn’t know the slightest thing about it?
If they did know, then Bush’s October speech about the danger of a Third World War was at the very least, reckless. Then it also follows that the plan to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – which also carried an emergency stamp – was not only rationally unjustifiable, but ideologically motivated. And this ideological cocktail, in addition to the reasons given, had two additional ingredients: The intent to keep the Russians on the straight and narrow and a wish to dismantle bad old Europe and replace it with a good new one.
Perhaps the reference to Teheran was seen as a means to that end. But whether these policies were based on a lack of knowledge – which amounts in the end to recklessness – or whether they were taken against better judgment, is therefore hypothetical. But whatever the case, the Bush Administration owes its European allies an explanation – and not the kind of explanation Bush gave on Tuesday, claiming that his administration has been right all along.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “The Third World War – Cancelled”
How has this happened? How, in 7 short years, have these incompetents and warmongers managed to destroy more than 200 years of steady progress toward “a more perfect union?” Toward an intelligent, credible diplomacy mated with Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” that has served us so well, if occasionally imperfectly.
How is it that the heroes of Watergate, an independent watchdog press, so shriveled up as to become Pravda on the Potomac?
How did America, which once pointed with righteous abhorrence and disgust at the Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot’s torture regime, come to accept rendition, Guantanamo, and waterboarding?
How has the America that conquered polio and smallpox, put humans on the moon and surveyed Mars, developed desktop supercomputers and the Internet, come to so often reject advancing humanity through science in the name of religion?
The intelligence estimate may be correct, and yet, Iran continues active development of long-range ballistic missiles. For what purpose? Israel recently bombed a target in Syria that may have been a North Korean made nuclear plant. Is it possible that Syria and Iran could be cooperating with North Korea and China on distributed weapons development?
With or without a nuclear program, Iran strikes me as a very dangerous and destabilizing force. It would be naive to assume from this report that they have peaceful intentions in the region. Their rhetoric and their missile program (not to mention the shipment of arms and fighters to Iraq) suggest otherwise.
AZC – Israel has missiles capable as ICBM and spy satellites, no Arab or Persian country has anything close. These Arab missiles aren’t even long range, most are just improved Scuds.
On the NIE story, Pat Lang has this gem:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/12/the-senate-and.html
His commentary about the WaPo article:
The intel chief were willing to face arrest to disclose a report the administration was stonewalling. We aren’t a “banana republic” yet.
Yes. And Iran’s missile program is an obvious threat to the rest of the region, as is uranium enrichment (only fools believe the contemporary “civilian” claim; it makes great propaganda for the gullible and those in the West who want it to falter or to fail) and any efforts Iran has made and may be making to acquire plutonium.
No, Rudi, Iran doesn’t have to show the world (and why would expect it to?) components for an implosion device, when a gun-type device is much simpler and foolproof and what many of us know should be sought, as a result, by rogue states and by terrorist groups; all that’s needed is to acquire more bomb fuel than that for a comparable implosion device. Getting the fuel has always been the hardest or most expensive step, in general, and anyone who can get significant quantities of enriched uranium (not plutonium) could avoid the work on an implosion weapon (and the additional risk of detection of acquiring the components) and just make a gun-type weapon, especially if the first use will be within the country just doing a test.
They haven’t. They remain liberal and antagonistic to politicians with an R stamped on them. Hopefully you don’t also call the House Democrats “spineless” for not being more of a source of trouble to everyone else and not satisfying the less rational, more fringy left-side base.
It didn’t. Oh, some Americans support some of the Iraq things, but most don’t accept all these things. Not only do they not support such things, these things were largely hidden from them until they were made public by the non-shrunken media.
It doesn’t so often reject it. Phobia of the Religious Right (and hatred of it) is pathological (diseased) and is not normal, nor mainstream in this country. Religious bigotry and left-wing politicization of science, sadly, is a frequent occurrence that has no place here or anywhere else.
Especially with every US soldier killed or maimed in Iraq thanks to, and effectively at the hands of, Iran.
The anti-Bush people are not only naive but actively opposed to our interests in the region. It’s hard to say how much sympathy they have with Iran but they do have it, particularly whenever Israel is the subject of discussion at the same time. Reality then is inverted to support typical lies. (The poor, sweet, innocent, non-threatening Iranians are threatened by the evil, aggressive, oppressive, threatening Israelis, and they’re just defending themselves, and that’s their right…)
It seems as if the intelligence community was trying to make up for past mistakes, specifically it didn’t want to be part and parcel of another bogus Bush/Cheney military adventure, and so wanted this to be made public before one could be launched. Someones conscience was pricked perhaps?
As for the Bush administration owing its European allies an explanation? I fully agree. I will be shocked however, if one is forthcoming. It just isn’t the nature of these people.
Mike, the questions you raise are ones I ask myself every day. The standards of behavior and accountability for American govt. have become excruciatingly low over the past half dozen years. I’m old enough to know it wasn’t always this way, nor was the electorate always so apathetic in it’s response to abuse of “leadership” – party loyalty notwithstanding.
This report could well be a mistake, don’t forget.
I suspect the behavior may be due to what I have reviewed about the engineering of the war. The Bush administration largely bypassed the intel community, and what information they did use from intel was cherry-picked. I believe what may be the explanation here is related to what you wrote, namely what someone else wrote on another thread, that intel doesn’t want to be scapegoated again.
There were valid reasons for removing Hussein, as he was a proven threat to his neighbors and had a history of attacking them, don’t forget, as well as having had and used WMDs before. Most of us supported the war, though many were like the liberal who wrote to me, begrudging supporters of it if it were a necessary evil, a dirty job that needed to be done at less cost now than at greater cost later. What did this liberal have to say, that would have justified this: “Just show us the WMDs.” I found Bush’s subsequent looking-under-the-table-for-the-WMDs joke to be in extremely poor taste, to say the least. Going to war for that arguably was overkill against a real threat (just less costly now than later) and the subsequent occupation, attempt at pacification, and assistance in reconstruction has been a disappointment, farce, or disaster — choose your word or whichever else you prefer. We must not remove our troops immediately or the power vacuum will be filled by Iran and terrorists (Iran was the main concern underlying Bush Sr.’s decision not to remove Hussein, which partially was why he was not re-elected, by the way). We’re stuck there until we can devise something better. (US military bases in Iraq, which offer region-wide options if we need to exercise them, in place of occupation, is one such alternative.)
We have our hands full in Iraq and an attack on Iran would draw serious retaliation, the last thing we need at this time. I don’t believe the Bush people would attack Iran (particularly with Halliburton at work there), and may be telling Israel it’s up to them to do the job on the WMD and missile sites if Israel feels it’s necessary, with the release of this report (which was approved by the Bush people for release, i.e., public world-wide consumption).
Non sequitur(s).
The main issue here: The missile shield is perfectly justifiable. (Also, ballistic missile defense is highly welcome. Only the self-destructive or self-loathing are against devising a defense against missile attack.) The only questions are where best to try to destroy the missiles (launch and ascent, mid-course in the exosphere, or during re-entry and approach to the target), or if a combination of these (defense in depth) makes sense. (As to the use of atmospheric nukes in the path of missiles to destroy them, by all means do it; anti-nuclear people’s sensibility and excessive hype over nuclear debris is outweighed by survival in such rare instances.)
Poland or Czech Republic? Perfectly sound.
“Phobia of the Religious Right (and hatred of it) is pathological (diseased) and is not normal, nor mainstream in this country. Religious bigotry and left-wing politicization of science, sadly, is a frequent occurrence that has no place here or anywhere else.”
DLS, that has to be the most sadly ridiculous characterization I’ve seen all week. Let me direct your attention to the 12th word in your diatribe, and suggest you consider it in the context of a little self-examination.
As opposed to corporate influence and right-wing politicization.
Intelligent design is anything but intelligent and craetionism in a “shiny package”. The Right parades a university professor who is also a “dowser expert” to debunk global warming.
http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner
DLS- Unless someone gave the Iranians plans to tactical artillery nukes or the Chinese early nukes, the gun-type isn’t going to work on ballistic missiles.
(the truth, much as you dislike it)
The 11th is too challenging?
It’s there, notably with the Bush administration, but leftist activity dwarfs it easily.
Incidentally, it was you, not I, who introduced “intelligent design,” which I did not write about because I do not consider it to be science.
* * *
It can be delivered by airplane or by ship, though I doubt it could successfully be delivered to Israel, which is prudent about security considering the nature of and experience with its enemies.
Delivery isn’t an issue at all with what I wrote about, which is to conduct a test within Iran. That’s all that is needed to make the news and get the reputation the Iranians want. If they want to demonstrate they have a nuke and also achieve home-grown design and construction of one (with home-grown bomb fuel), that would be the easiest route. No Chinese “blueprint bomb” or foreign bomb set off by foreigners required.
As with the mind-reading frauds he tackled (I liked the photo-reading psychic and the photo of James Bundy, the killer, Randi used to get a glowing, sunny description of the nice young man in the photo) and what he wrote in one of his books — it gives me a tickle given the time I enjoyed in St. Louis:
(Claims for the unusual or unexpected):
just show us.
Reminds me of the liberal who was reluctantly pro-war and wouldn’t cheer but would grudgingly accept the decision: “just show us the WMDs.” (Beat you to it, Rudi.)
DLS – I agree with your thoughts about a gun type bomb, but the US and Israelis rhetoric calls out sophisticated nukes on missiles. The yields of the Pakistanis and Indian a-bombs were probably gun types and both took years to update to a missile delivery system. Iran first needs a simple A-bomb, the miniaturization is quantum leap to threaten Europe and the USA. The missile defense system is pushed as a deterrence against Iran. How are they gonna put a Fatboy on a Scud?