Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the US doesn't want Iran to have the 'Bomb'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:43 PM
Original message
Why the US doesn't want Iran to have the 'Bomb'
The 'Islamic Bomb' has been a bete noir for US Diplomats for many years. We have a situation where one of our major allies in the Islamic World already has a nuclear arsenal and has been involved in nuclear weapons proliferation, yet we continue to deal with Pakistan as if nothing ever happened. Iran, on the other hand, has only been engaged in Uranium enrichment, supposedly for peaceful uses, yet the Bush administration seem apoplectic over the thought of the Iranians even remotely coming close to producing weapons-grade Uranium.
The president's recent trip to India has muddled the waters even more by agreeing to provide nuclear fuel to a country that has refused to sign the Non-proliferation treaty. So, where is the bone of contention that makes this Administration engage in such schizophrenic behavior?

Iran is a predominately Shia country, and the thought of a 'Shia Bomb' must make Sunni Islamic governments shake in their sandals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Location, Location, Location!
Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Given Iran's geography/neighbors, I cant blame them for wanting nukes.
They border Russia and Pakistan, both with nukes and are near India, China, Israel, N. Korea and the US presence in the ME.

They just want to keep up with the "Joneses', IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Can't blame them either
But as far as the US saying no it's not as much of a threat to this land as a direct threat to Israel, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phoebe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. if the US didn't want Iran to have the bomb then why were they busy
selling components, along with arms to them, since the 70's..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Just combining business with pleasure.
Halliburton never misses an opportunity to make a buck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't think anyone wants to see Iran with the bomb
Pakistan and North Korea are bad enough, and supposedly the Saudis are hard at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phoebe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Anyone else heard of CONPLAN 8022? Entire article is VERY informative
A high-risk game of nuclear chicken
By F William Engdahl

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html

snip

Conplan 8022
In January 2003, Bush signed a classified presidential directive, Conplan 8022-02. This is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits "no ground troops". It was specifically drafted to deal with "imminent" threats from states such as North Korea and Iran.

Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months, even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent's response-cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks.

Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating "mini" nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran's. Last summer, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing around-the-clock military readiness to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15 Washington Post.

Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces. In January 2003, Bush signed on to a definition of "full spectrum global strike", which included precision nuclear as well as conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the president's September 2002 National Security Strategy, which laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of "preemptive" wars.

The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush White House might "think the unthinkable" and order a nuclear preemptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.

Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US strategy towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully orchestrated escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to force Iran to back down. It seems clear, especially in light of the strategic threat Iran faces from US or Israeli forces on its borders after 2003, that Iran is not likely to back down from its clear plans to develop full nuclear fuel cycle capacities, and with it the option of developing an Iranian nuclear capability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harpo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. wow, thanks for sharing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC