“We’re talking about a clear message to Iran — Israel has the right to self-defense — and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”
~John Bolton
de∙fense 1 the act or power of defending, or guarding against attack, harm, or danger 2 the fact or state of being defended 3 a) something that defends: means of or resources for protection b) a plan or system of defending 4 justification or support speech or writing; vindication 5 self-protection as by boxing 6 the side that is defending in any contest 7 a)the arguments in behalf of the defendant in a law case b) the defendant and his or her lawyer or lawyers, collectively
of∙fen∙sive 1 attacking; aggressive 2 of or for attack 3 designating or of the side that is seeking to score in any contest 4 unpleasant, as to the senses; disgusting; repugnant 5 causing resentment, anger, etc.; insulting
It appears Mr. John Bolton has either mastered the art of doubletalk or has confused the simple definitions of these words. Perhaps the words themselves have taken on new meaning. One can only wonder how the argument of “self-defense,” when no attack ever took place, would hold up in a court of law. Only the savviest of jurists could ever defend the argument successfully, yet we hear no questioning of the Israeli/US policy when these terms distort the discussion of an attack on Iran.
Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher recently released a discussion paper exploring the realities of an attack on Iran. The document discusses the prospect of the possible attempted destruction of the Iranian regime and state by the United States and its allies. The report definitively concludes the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus, and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George Bush giving the order.
Remarkably, the Democratic Congress who was given a directive to end the Iraq Occupation by the American voters in the 2006 election recently refused to insist on being consulted before any attacks on Iran. As Senator and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has rightfully argued, “Congress is the only US entity that can declare war.” Despite this obvious constitutional authority and the abuse of power that President George Bush has exercised with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prepared to attack Iran if necessary.
Notable in the paper is a quote from Philip Giraldi in the American Conservative who notes, The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked…STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the United States…As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Much like US policy in Iraq, the post-war planning in Iran does not exist. As John Pike of the indispensable global policy forum puts it, “They think they can just bow up want they want to blow up and let the ant heap sort itself our afterwards.”
The discussion explores the possibilities of varied military strikes, ranging from limited strikes to target suspected nuclear facilities to the escalation of targeting all areas needed for the Iranian government and civilian populace to function listed above. The Administration as well as the Israeli government both understand the importance of preventing any possible retaliation from Iran. The paper states, There would be provisions for assaults to prevent Iran striking back in any significant manner. These would involve US forces in Iraq and Iran, protection for the Straights of Hormuz and oil facilities in the Gulf States, disruption of Revolutionary Guard, and other elite forces loyal to the current government.
The discussion of possible Iranian retaliation in the case of a pre-emptive strike concludes that the only way to avoid escalation is to completely destroy Iran’s capacity to retaliate. This includes the bombing of all suspected WMD sites, civilian and military infrastructure, military bases, economic infrastructure and state apparatus.
The plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran have been in the making since March of 2003. British Military sources stated on condition of anonymity that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from March 2003…and continues…this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. As one anonymous Iraq veteran wrote while serving in Iraq, I sat in a meeting in Baghdad when I was last there over a week ago to discuss this very matter before Ambassador Bremer left for Washington and the U.N., and it was apparent that everyone is really grasping at straws when it comes to understanding Sistani. More importantly, none of the real differences of opinion about what kind of influence and control a fetwah in his name condemning the process would mean in terms of popular reaction is based on more than conjecture.
In any case, what don’t seem to register right now are the real reasons why we don’t want to have direct elections in the near future. Yes, certainly we’re concerned about the mechanics (though the Green Zone notion that ration cards won’t work appears to have been based on completely flawed information provided by so-called “experts”), and our fear that imperfect elections might yield catastrophic results is genuine. But the catastrophic result we’re worried about isn’t women being disenfranchised or election results being contested — it’s that, in the short term, the best organized party and thus the most likely winner is the Iranian-backed SCIRI. We’ve got big fears about the Iranians projecting power all the way through the southern region of Iraq to the border with Saudi Arabia, and so we should, because that’s exactly what they’re aggressively seeking to do. People who speculate about whether we’ll take on Iran in the next round don’t realize that the battle is already more or less underway here in Iraq.
The paper discusses at great length not only potential targets in Iran but the varied weapons of choice, which includes the use of nuclear weapons. The paper points out, It is not responsible to argue that they will never be used and that there is not need for public debate. The weapons exist. The military personnel trained in their use exist. The political policy describing their possible use exists. What is lacking is a public discussion amongst those who support present policies of the realities of putting these policies into practice.
Perhaps the most alarming analysis of the paper is the discussion of civilian casualties. Using Department of Defense methodology for attacks of 3×10kt ground burst weapons per location, the paper concludes that approximately 2,816,000 civilian casualties will occur. However, this number is only inclusive of attacks of less than half of the suspected WMD sites. This number of casualties also does not include the effects of the inevitable fallout from the use of nuclear weapons, of which it is certain, radiation from these explosions would reach the upper atmosphere and be carried across much of the earth. In the early 1960’s public concern over detected concentrations of radioactivity in cow’s milk produced the public pressure that led to a US, UK, Russian ban on testing in the atmosphere.
After reading this blog and the contents of this discussion paper, I have only one small favor to ask of you. Please, for the love of humanity, your country, and God, call your representatives today and demand and end to this madness.
Tell them to vote NO on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (No. 3017), a provocative measure that will only undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy. Talking points: No more blank checks for this administration. Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. should pursue smart, tough-minded dialogue and diplomacy, which are far more likely than force to produce a satisfactory resolution in the case of Iran. Iran’s gains in Iraq are largely due to the Bush invasion and subsequent mishandling of Iraq. By rushing to war without a strategy for winning the peace, we opened the door for Iran to connect with the Iraqi Shiites in power to engender discord. Let’s stop a war with Iran
before it begins. Call your senators at the Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121, and please call them today.
