Does Iran want war?
A fine essay by Ralph Peters.
Sy Hersh is a provacateur, not a reporter. StrategyPage has covered all of the options Hersh mentions– without the breathless hype and fearmongering. But here’s a link to Hersh’s latest New Yorker screed.
Get a load:
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)
Campaign of coercion — well, duh. Or rational preparations. Or military prepatory actions to support diplomatic initiatives. This is news? No, this is schtick.
As for “the nuclear option”:
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.
The Clinton Administration considered mini-nnukes (developing them) and shied away from it (really rolled the decision forward to the next administration). That said, the Clinton Administration was concerned about Libya’s “buried” chemical weapons facilities. The US has been developing deep penetration conventional bombs for 15 years (the Gulf War GBU-28 was a jruy-rigged bomb).
IFor nearly two decades I’ve been advocating Iranian regime change –by making common cause with the mullahs’ Iranian opponents. Here’s a link to a column from January 2006.
The Iran Calculus Has Ahmadinejad miscalculated? Does Iran want war? Has Bush gone too far in reports claiming that the Administration is planning nuclear strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities? Or, are we so devoid of actual news that we’re relying upon idle …
Trackback by A Blog For All — 4/9/2006 @ 11:23 am
My reaction was “I hope they’re making plans. I would expect nothing less from this president.”
Comment by AST — 4/9/2006 @ 3:03 pm
[…] olitics, Middle East/Terrorism at 1:08 pm by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton Courtesy of Austin Bay: A fine essay by Ralph Peters. Sy Hersh is a provacateur, not a reporter. StrategyPage has covered […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Does Iran want war? — 4/9/2006 @ 3:08 pm
It seem The New York Post–semiofficial NYC organ of the West Bank settlers–has another chore for the US in the Middle East.
Comment by skip — 4/9/2006 @ 4:19 pm
Hersh is a kind of news scavenger. Remixing old information with a dash of new spice and a hard slant. Of course how much worse is this than the standard news media. It is becoming harder to tell.
Comment by Rob — 4/9/2006 @ 4:51 pm
Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.Nuke, nuke, nuke. Nuke nuke Iran. Nuke Ira-a-an … OK, nobody really wants to see another war, especially not one fought with nuclear weapons. Trouble is, sometimes you don’t have any good choices and I’d much rather see a mushroom cloud over Tehran than Ft. Worth. I voted for George Bush because I k…
Trackback by Small Town Veteran — 4/9/2006 @ 5:29 pm
Regime change requires invasion — sometime soon after the 2006 elections? Or else the Iranians will back down, waiting for the next, non-Bush president. But that would assume they are rational.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 4/10/2006 @ 3:00 am
Hersh is a fraud and a liar. Iran is seeking nukes and it is anyone’s guess if and where they will use them. We are simply in a race to either achieve regime change in Iran before its Mullahcracy can deploy nuclear weapons, or take them out. If we lose this race it will mean a default position in which either the US or Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear capability. How realistic is this? This will only delay the final reckoning - Iran will not quit attempts to acquire the bomb. The Israelis would do it if need be. I do not think the US has the resolve and would wait until Israel or the US is nuked to take action a day late and a dollar short.
Comment by Mark McGilvray — 4/10/2006 @ 11:04 am
[…] utiful. As usual from this site, a thoughtful and well-written post. Does Iran WANT war? Austin Bay links to a great Ralph Peters op-ed, and adds commentary. Linked to Conservative Cat […]
Pingback by Cigar Intelligence Agency — 4/10/2006 @ 11:35 am
You guys 100% sure Mr A. wants nukes in order to use them? Or, does he want them to 1) be the biggest baddest ass on whacky street? 2) as an armed umbrella under which he can advance his mischief more slowly but surely? The game is to control the oil, which is Great Satan’s life blood. So watch how Iran and Hugo get chummy. Whatever’s in store for Iran, I very much hope that we’ve first gotten China and/or Russia to see that it’s in their interests too. Are there any old-fashioned deal making diplomats in the house? Geez, Putin was so right about how losing the USSR was a catastrophe.
Comment by chickenhawklittle — 4/10/2006 @ 1:01 pm
In my evalutation of Carter’s presidency http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/02/39-13-x-3.html it boils down to a simple question: “Why is Carter the worst President of the 1900s? Iran. “Effective action needed to be taken. Immediate, forceful, effective action. A war, if necessary. Some of us could see it then. Now, it should be clear to everyone. Five hundred years of international law thrown out the window by a criminal regime, with impugnity. Iran is the major problem of this era. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the student leaders who invaded our embassy and took the hostages. Now he’s pressing for and achieving possession of a nuclear arsenal. He makes speeches about the pig ape Jews, and how Israel will be destroyed. By him. And he says the Great Satan - that’s us - will also be destroyed. Never did the Soviets approach such vitriol. The Soviets were sane - by which I mean rational as we understand it. Iran, now, listens to voices no one else can hear. Those voices say destroy the US and the Jews, and Iran wants to obey. “That’s why Carter is the worst president in six generations - maybe ever. We needed a Jackson or a Lincoln or a Roosevelt - either - and instead we got a Buchanan. It’s taken a generation to come to maturity, but the perspective of the ensuing years makes it clear. He was midwife to the monster that will destroy us, if we let it. The Peacock Throne is a nest for harpies - ravenous, man-eating and irrational. In weeks or months, their claws will be sharp enough. It may be, soon, that the Civil War is no longer the costliest of wars for America.” J
Comment by Jack H — 4/10/2006 @ 5:58 pm
[…] Does Iran want War? - Ralph Peters, New York Post (HT: Austin Bay) This entry was posted on Monday, April 10th, 2006 at […]
Pingback by The Seven Realms » Blog Archive » Does Iran want War? - Ralph Peters, New York Post — 4/10/2006 @ 8:36 pm
The most relevant answer to the pressing question of whether Iran wants war comes from the antagonist of this inquiry. What do the words and deeds of Iran reveal about the probable prospects of its impending nuclear belligerence? The only answer so far clearly presented echoes a resounding and unequivocal – “YES – We Want War and We Will Win Because You’ve No Will to Stop Us and You’re Too Weak to Try!!†Unfortunately, the clarity displayed in this declaration is clouded by the irrational application of reason to the motives of an apocalyptic regime, which imprudently quibbles about the necessary certainty of the patently obvious. Furthermore, any sober recognition that “Iranian Aggression†indeed presents an existential threat to our world receives near unanimous rebuke and denial from the rational. Today liberal foreign policy wonks call for tougher sanctions and allied engagement while international diplomats speak eloquently about the importance of negotiation and multilateralism – as a regime led by men of will, who have vowed to annihilate the state of Israel and its Western allies, marches ever closer to acquiring their doomsday weapon. Against this cabal of lunacy the wisdom of Winston Churchill provides both caution and resolve as dark days approach – “Beware of Sheep in Wolves Clothing.†In the coming months Iranian Mullahs and Madman represent the deep threat while domestic agents of denial and defeat threaten our security from within. Their “tough talk†amounts to nothing more that the surrender of our sovereignty in the vain hope that appeasing the pernicious evils of totalitarianism may at least prevent the unthinkable, yet it is precisely the unthinkable their efforts encourage. If we still cherish our independence and freedom we must reject the elusive prospects of diplomatic wishful thinking, halfway measures, and the compromise. Let us instead embrace our defiant legacy of liberty and demonstrate for those “men of will†who rule Iran the true meaning of AMERICAN WILL. So disposed our apprehensions over the war Iran most definitely desires dissolve in the indefatigable action of the war we impose upon them. A war in which we violently affirm the power of will known only to free people standing bravely against the threats of tyranny.
Comment by TheMarine — 4/11/2006 @ 11:20 pm
Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated? by Victor Davis Hanson The Iranian president better sober up and do some cool reckoning. …
Trackback by The Absurd Report — 4/12/2006 @ 1:40 am
That article by Peters was one of the most irrational, fear-mongering pieces I’ve read in quite some time. He comes across as nothing but a card-carrying member of PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), just like Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz and their merry band of insane, let’s-go-conquer-the-world nut cases. Peters’ opinion reveals all that is reviled about this country around the world. That’s not what America is about. Disgraceful.
Comment by DrewL Bucket — 4/15/2006 @ 3:08 pm