Opposing View: Prepare To Attack [Iran]

[Purveyor]

By Daniel Pipes

In a declassified National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, the U.S. intelligence agencies announced last December, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

This highly controversial conclusion encouraged the Iranian leadership to dismiss the possibility of an American attack, permitting Tehran to stake out an increasingly bellicose position and rendering further negotiations predictably futile.

Ideally, the Iranians themselves can still be induced to close down their nuclear program. The alternatives — either a U.S. or Israeli attack, or allowing the apocalyptically minded leadership in Tehran to get The Bomb — are far worse.

Reviving a sense of apprehension in Iran offers the unique way to achieve this goal. Only by convincing Tehran that it will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons can Washington persuade it to terminate its program, avoiding the need for a military campaign. This can yet be attained, but it requires a basic shift in U.S. policy.

First, the Bush administration must prepare for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and, second, signal this publicly. (Israeli leaders should do likewise, as some have done already.) Third, the administration must weather the inevitable tsunami of criticism. Fourth, it should encourage those governments most opposed to such an attack — including the European Union, Russia and China — to lean on Tehran to end its nuclear program.

Should this approach succeed, the crisis is resolved. Should it not, the U.S. presidential election will loom large. "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option," John McCain has said. "That is a nuclear-armed Iran." In contrast, Barack Obama has called for "tough-minded diplomacy," "stronger (economic) sanctions" and "alternative sources of energy" — basically, a call for more of the same.

If George W. Bush's term ends with a McCain victory, Bush will likely punt, allowing McCain to decide on the next steps. But Obama's intention to continue with current failed policies suggests that, if he wins, and despite the tradition of outgoing presidents not undertaking major initiatives, Bush might initiate military action against Iran.

---eoe---

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/06/opposing-view-p.html

[blublu]

1. Question,

Question: if bush is impeached, what would be his "position" be as Commander in Chief?

Thanks.

[Igel]

2. Unchanged.

"Impeach" = "accuse" or "indict", but it's a kind of indictment that has only political, not legal, repercussions. Consider Clinton.

If he's removed from office (tried, found guilty) then he's no longer commander in chief because he's no longer president.

[KakistocracyHater]

3. Wargames film

Is the "Spoilsport System" real or merely Hollywood? The automated system that launches Soviet-era icbm nukes, now in how many 'satellite countries'? Ukraine, Bosnia, Poland...

[Diclotican]

4. KakistocracyHater

KakistocracyHater

The automated system exist - or exist when the cold war was very cold. I don't how it is today, but in the "good cool days" of the cold war, US had an automated system, who if was in some position like def con 2 and 1 could launch the land based ICBMs because the system believed the organic command structure to be dead.. Attacked by the soviet ICBMs and therefore out...

But, the system sometimes malfunction, and in the 1970s and the 1980s is was some "episodes" where the system was reacting strange.. Specially when they was drilling the use of nuclear weapon, and the games was "little" to realistic.. But thankfully it never started the war we all feared would se the ned of the living world...

And today we have a president, who are more than happy to use nuclear weapon, against a country who they to this day are not sure would even produce a nuclear device.. What the president don't know is that if he use this weapon, even a low yield weapon other, friends of this country would not stand that for a second. And it could go, as many war games from the early 1980s told the world.. End of time.. First one missile, then another, and then thousands, to parts of the world.. In the end game even the biggest, most mean type of weapon would be used.. And nothing is left...

It is bad enough to commentate the use of nuclear weapon, as a last resort. But to use nuclear weapon as an offensive weapon. is madness. I can understand why the atomic country are planing for the worst of the worst, using nuclear weapon as an last sort of defense.. This is legitimate some sorts of... But to plan to use it is theater, as another weapon, that is morally wrong, and criminal wrong.. And the first country who are using this type of nuclear weapon, would be branded as evil in the whole world.. No matter how powerfully the country are, and how strong military the country is. An nuclear blast from that nation, if it is Russia, China, United States of America, France Great Britain, India, Pakistan and North Korea.. Would be branded as so evil, that the country would be given the whole nine yard... That country would never survive.. At least the world would turn their back of the country, and get their trade elsewhere.. At worst.. Well I would not dream about what could happened.. I could thing it, but I hope it never come ot it...

Well, Either Bosnia and Poland was part of the Soviet Union. Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia, and Poland was independent, but part of the Eastern Block.. And Warsaw was the "capital" where the Eastern block made it alliance from, the now dead Warzawapact. But the real power was in Russia.. As the real power in NATO today still reside in Pentagon, USA.. Yes we do have our "headquarter" in Brussels, but the real power.. We do know where that is...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language