Bush planning air strikes on Iran?

[turbo]

According to Arianna Huffington, Wes Clark is quite angry and believes that US air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are all but a done deal with zero diplomatic effort on the part of the administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070104/cm_huffpost/037837

Clark should run for President in 2008. Bush's complete mishandling of the US military leaves his successor with a terrible mess, and it would be an advantage to have someone with Clark's expertise to sort it out.

 

[Anttech]

Who is Wes Clark?

 

[Astronuc]

Who is Wes Clark?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Presdential candidate in 2004 elections, and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000 (under Clinton), who commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War in 1999.


I would prefer a more objective source. Hopefully Bush would inform Congress before ordering the US military to attack another nation. IIRC, Congress only authorized use of force against Iraq. Somehow I don't see Congress giving the president blanket authorization to attack any country, but I am sure Bush thinks he has such power.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to Arianna Huffington, Wes Clark is quite angry and believes that US air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are all but a done deal with zero diplomatic effort on the part of the administration.

According to the article:

Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

Reading the op-ed by Borchgrave :

And if Bush doesn't take on Iran, prominent Israelis are speculating that president Clinton 2 (Hillary) will do so. Oded Tira, the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrial Manufacturers, and former chief artillery office in the IDF, said, "Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party, which is conducting itself foolishly, and U.S. newspaper editors."

Doesn't sound like a done-deal at all. In fact, it gives the impression that the deal may at least as likely be made with the Dems.

 

[Moridin]

It doesn't surprise me that the suggestion to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities is on the tables and is getting more and more media attention. To my knowledge, it is not like similar use of this tactic hasn't happened before and is as a result, a well known (although highly controversial) tactic. Although in the (first) Gulf war it was the military and civil infrastructure in Iraq¹.

¹ "Gulf War." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003.

 

[Apost8]

I'm sure Bush would love to strike Iran, but he no longer has the political clout to pull it off.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't surprise me that the suggestion to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities is on the tables and is getting more and more media attention. To my knowledge, it is not like similar use of this tactic hasn't happened before and is as a result, a well known (although highly controversial) tactic. Although in the (first) Gulf war it was the military and civil infrastructure in Iraq¹.

¹ "Gulf War." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003.

I'm not sure I understand the reference to the Iraq war - the test case for this is Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981. Bush only wishes he had the stones to do that (though to be fair, the political situations are quite different).

 

[turbo]

Doesn't sound like a done-deal at all. In fact, it gives the impression that the deal may at least as likely be made with the Dems.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can carry the South. If either of them were the Democratic candidate, a Republican successor to Bush would be guaranteed. Wes Clark and a few other select Dems might pull it off, but the "Bubba" backlash make Obama and Clinton non-starters.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's quite well known that Cheney has had his sights set on Iran for several months now - but I've yet to see something that says this is a done deal (not implying it couldn't be). Recall the news that broke in the summer of 2005 about gaming a tactical nuclear attack on Iranian sites in "response" to any terrorist attack in the US.

Here's an excerpt from the original article in Philip Giraldi's* column in the American Conservative :

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. 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.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

*Philip Giraldi is a former CIA operations officer of 17 years experience, specializing in counter-terrorism. He served in Europe and the Middle East.

 

[LightbulbSun]

This is not good at all. If the U.S. strikes Iran I expect a counterattack. Plus let's not forget North Korea. This is not good at all.

 

[BobG]

... Hopefully Bush would inform Congress before ordering the US military to attack another nation. IIRC, Congress only authorized use of force against Iraq. Somehow I don't see Congress giving the president blanket authorization to attack any country, but I am sure Bush thinks he has such power.

Blanket authority to wage a war against any country in the world is about the only thing Congress refrained from giving Bush back in the fall of 2002. That's something that's a problem for quite a few Senators that lacked the courage to vote against that resolution (at least, given what they said about the bill they were voting for, it's hard to imagine any other reason for their vote).

Regardless, Bush has the authority to respond to any situation with military force. He just doesn't have the authority to declare war.

In other words, he can respond, on a short term basis, to any situation very rapidly. He supposedly can't commit us to a prolonged conflict, although it's debatable whether or not he can circumvent that by just not calling a prolonged conflict a war.

A short, heavy barrage of air strikes would definitely be within his authority. His ability to respond to Iran's response would be dependent on how Congress felt about the air strikes and Iran's response. My guess is that Iran's response would be to openly send troops into Iraq and to attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. I think given a choice between apologizing to Iran and giving into whatever recompense they desire or supporting military action to reopen the Strait and defend Iraq, Congress would fall in line behind the President.

About the strongest hint that Congress might revoke Bush's authority for the Iraq campaign came from the Republican Senator John Warner. Others have also brought up the subject of withholding funding for the Iraq campaing (Kucinich, for example), but I don't think it's very likely that Congress will do anything to get us out of Iraq. If they did, air strikes against Iran would probably be the quickest way to head Congress off at the pass.

 

[SticksandStones]

Whether or not Bush is planning on striking Iran is something I don't know.

However, according to The Times, Isreal is planning on doing just that.

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

I kind of find it ironic. They want to stop one country from getting nukes by using nukes!

 

[LightbulbSun]

Whether or not Bush is planning on striking Iran is something I don't know.

However, according to The Times, Isreal is planning on doing just that.



I kind of find it ironic. They want to stop one country from getting nukes by using nukes!

The repercussions for such a strike could ignite World War III.

 

[LightbulbSun]

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003133.html

"The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades," the Times is reporting.

The $100 billion effort is called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Back in August, our own Haninah Levine took a four-part look at the program.

 

[Astronuc]

Blanket authority to wage a war against any country in the world is about the only thing Congress refrained from giving Bush back in the fall of 2002. . . . .


Regardless, Bush has the authority to respond to any situation with military force. He just doesn't have the authority to declare war.

In other words, he can respond, on a short term basis, to any situation very rapidly. He supposedly can't commit us to a prolonged conflict, although it's debatable whether or not he can circumvent that by just not calling a prolonged conflict a war.

Yeah, but the US went to war with Iraq - so the Declaration of War is irrelevant. The US went to war in Vietnam - also without a Declaration of War. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

Any attack against Iran by US or Israel will invite retaliation. Certainly Iran has a legitiate right to defend itself - as does any nation. At the moment, the US is being the primary aggressor in the world - despites its condemnation of terrorism/agression by other nations. One can't get more hypocritical than that.

 

[turbo]

Any attack against Iran by US or Israel will invite retaliation. Certainly Iran has a legitiate right to defend itself - as does any nation. At the moment, the US is being the primary aggressor in the world - despites its condemnation of terrorism/agression by other nations. One can't get more hypocritical than that.

I just love how our government spreads "peace" and "democracy" via invasions and killings. What puzzles me is how the recipients of our military attacks seem so ungrateful.

Bush should not attack Iran under any circumstances. If Israel feels threatened by Iran, they should attack Iran themselves and suffer the consequences, not use the US as their proxy. If the US attacks Iran, we will have to commit to suppressing the inevitable backlash and the entire world will suffer from higher fuel prices as oil production is disrupted. The hawks in Israel know this - the problem is that Bush is either too stupid to see the trap, or he WANTS us in that trap. Either situation is scary. He and Cheney should be impeached for the good of the country. President Pelosi couldn't screw up as badly as that pair of idiots.

 

[Futobingoro]

At the moment, the US is being the primary aggressor in the world - despites its condemnation of terrorism/agression by other nations. One can't get more hypocritical than that.

Naturally, one can apply the label of "hypocrite" to a government only if it has principles to begin with.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Naturally, one can apply the label of "hypocrite" to a government only if it has principles to begin with.

It USED to have principles. The keywords being "used to".

 

[russ_watters]

The repercussions for such a strike could ignite World War III.

You said something like this in your other thread. But how? Who would be fighting against whom and why?

Would China start lobbing nukes at the US because Israel attacked Iran? Why would they do that?

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, but the US went to war with Iraq - so the Declaration of War is irrelevant. The US went to war in Vietnam - also without a Declaration of War. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

Not quite irrelevant. Congress is right now threatening to pull funding from the Iraq conflict. A declaration of war is irrelevant if you have Congress in your pocket, but Bush doesn't anymore.

 

[turbo]

Not quite irrelevant. Congress is right now threatening to pull funding from the Iraq conflict. A declaration of war is irrelevant if you have Congress in your pocket, but Bush doesn't anymore.

Bush sent a carrier group to the Persian Gulf and it seems that another is on its way with enough duty-time to allow a 2-month overlap of their tours. Iran will likely be attacked during the overlap, soon after the second carrier group has deployed. If Israel attacks Iran and Iran makes any move to attack targets of opportunity (our ships and aircraft) in the region, Bush will retaliate with full force and a new war will be underway with no consultation with Congress, no budgetary discussions, and no attempt at diplomacy. The war will be presented by the Bushies as a fait accompli that was regrettable but necessary, and anybody who disagrees will be branded an unpatriotic surrender-monkey.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You said something like this in your other thread. But how? Who would be fighting against whom and why?

Would China start lobbing nukes at the US because Israel attacked Iran? Why would they do that?

Maybe not China, but North Korea would get involved especially if we keep trying to prod them against building nuclear weapons. I know that probably doesn't make much sense, but I'm throwing out a scenario.

[oops - sorry, hit the wrong button - russ]

 

[turbo]

Maybe not China, but North Korea would get involved especially if we keep trying to prod them against building nuclear weapons. I know that probably doesn't make much sense, but I'm throwing out a scenario.

Korea would do well to keep out of this one so Bush doesn't whack them, too, but there are a lot of nukes in that part of the world, including India, Pakistan, the former members of the Soviet Union, and Israel. There are plenty of conventional weapons, too. If a free-for-all starts, a lot of entities could press their agendas based on real or concocted grievances and things will get nasty in short order. Expect Israel to move on Syria and Jordan, and expect Turkey to move on the Kurds at a minimum.

 

[Yonoz]

Why Jordan?

 

[russ_watters]

Bush sent a carrier group to the Persian Gulf and it seems that another is on its way with enough duty-time to allow a 2-month overlap of their tours. Iran will likely be attacked during the overlap, soon after the second carrier group has deployed. If Israel attacks Iran and Iran makes any move to attack targets of opportunity (our ships and aircraft) in the region, Bush will retaliate with full force and a new war will be underway with no consultation with Congress, no budgetary discussions, and no attempt at diplomacy. The war will be presented by the Bushies as a fait accompli that was regrettable but necessary, and anybody who disagrees will be branded an unpatriotic surrender-monkey.

Interesting prediction. I don't see any good reason to believe that it is going to happen. Reporters (and bloggers) are talking crap. Reporters always talk crap.

You started this thread - other people quickly pointed out that the blogger/reporter you cited is just spewing crap. What do you have to base your prediction on that is real? The carrier group? Deployments always overlap. Its a meaningless fact that you are citing.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe not China, but North Korea would get involved especially if we keep trying to prod them against building nuclear weapons. I know that probably doesn't make much sense, but I'm throwing out a scenario.

North Korea at best has half a dozen nukes that might work. How does that constitute WWIII or global nuclear annihilation?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why Jordan?

'Cause Jews can't stand the NBA!

That the John Stennis strike group is headed to the Persian Gulf to join the Eisenhower group would be unusual only if Ike is nowhere near the end of its deployment, wouldn't it*? Is a two month overlap in deployments longer than is usual? But now that you mention this...I just heard something on the BBC news a day or two ago about an Admiral being appointed to head CentCom. Sure makes me raise an eyebrow now!

* Edit: Just read Russ' post that answers the question. Eyebrow is significantly lowered.

 

[turbo]

Why Jordan?

To destabilize a relatively stable neighbor. Strikes in southern Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank are a given - I think the Israeli hawks would go further.

 

[turbo]

Interesting prediction. I don't see any good reason to believe that it is going to happen. Reporters (and bloggers) are talking crap. Reporters always talk crap.

You started this thread - other people quickly pointed out that the blogger/reporter you cited is just spewing crap. What do you have to base your prediction on that is real? The carrier group? Deployments always overlap. Its a meaningless fact that you are citing.

Spewing crap? She is quoting a very respected military leader. Wes Clark is not disconnected from the intelligence community, despite his retirement, nor would he tolerate being mis-quoted by a blogger, liberal or right-wing. I think that we need to pay attention to information that comes from highly-placed sources with records of real service to the US. Wes Clark is one of the guys that fit that category.

 

[russ_watters]

Spewing crap? She is quoting a very respected military leader. Wes Clark is not disconnected from the intelligence community, despite his retirement, nor would he tolerate being mis-quoted by a blogger, liberal or right-wing. I think that we need to pay attention to information that comes from highly-placed sources with records of real service to the US. Wes Clark is one of the guys that fit that category.

I'm sure he was quoted accurately, but it isn't the quotes that are the problem, it is the crap they made up about what the quotes imply that is. Didn't you read the articles or any of the early responses in this thread? Neither Clark nor the article they cite said anything anywhere close to what the blogger says was between the lines.

 

[turbo]

I'm sure he was quoted accurately, but it isn't the quotes that are the problem, it is the crap they made up about what the quotes imply that is. Didn't you read the articles or any of the early responses in this thread? Clark said nothing anywhere close to what the article says.

What Wes Clark said was quoted quite explicitly in the article. This is not a case of "unnamed sources" or "high-ranking officials" that are commonly cited as sources of leaks in right wing outlets that are Bush mouthpieces (perhaps the "leakiest" administration in recent memory). Clark is quoted explicitly and his observations are backed up with analysis. He is not a nut job and we ignore him at our peril.

 

[LightbulbSun]

North Korea at best has half a dozen nukes that might work. How does that constitute WWIII or global nuclear annihilation?

Well it depends on their targets. Let's say theoretically the half a dozen nukes that you were referring to do work, all of them. Now let's say they carefully drop all six on six different U.S. cities. That's quite a big wipeout of the population and a strong pretext for the U.S. to wage a global nuclear annihilation. All of this is theory in practice of course, but that is something I am concerned with.

 

[Yonoz]

To destabilize a relatively stable neighbor. Strikes in southern Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank are a given - I think the Israeli hawks would go further.

Why would Israel want to destabilize its neighbours?
Jordan and Israel cooperate on a very wide spectrum. Unlike Lebanon's government and the PA, the Jordanian leadership is very cooperative on matters of Israeli security. There is no need to conduct strikes there.
EDIT: BTW, the hawks here, as everywhere, aren't bent on world domination, they simply have very low tolerance to any perceived risk.

 

[turbo]

BTW, the hawks here, as everywhere, aren't bent on world domination, they simply have very low tolerance to any perceived risk.

Not world domination, but certainly they have a penchant for regional domination and acquisition of territory - watch for Israel to carve "buffer zones" out of its neighbors in the event of regional upheaval - all in the name of "security" of course.

 

[Yonoz]

Not world domination, but certainly they have a penchant for regional domination and acquisition of territory - watch for Israel to carve "buffer zones" out of its neighbors in the event of regional upheaval - all in the name of "security" of course.

Not certainly at all. There are hawks and there are extremists - they make good bedfellows, but do not confuse them.
I fail to see why I should "watch for Israel to carve 'buffer zones' out of its neighbors", especially since it hasn't done so in over 25 years (rather the opposite).
Israel has given to Jordan 300 square kilometers and is leasing 2850 dunams as part of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace" .
Take a look at http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peace_annexI_bc.html#Annex I (b)", too.