Nuke News Roundup

Iran announced that it has enriched a small amount of uranium to nuclear fuel grade, a thumb of the nose at Bushite saber-rattling as well as the UN. The Iranians claim it is a step towards peaceful use of nuclear power. An expert on the PBS News Hour said that this milestone was expected at about this time, and that it doesn't really accelerate the estimate of 5 to 10 years until Iran could develop and build nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, responses continue to the weekend stories in the New Yorker and the Washington Post (as well as other papers in England and elsewhere) that the Bushites are planning air attacks on Iran, including the use of nuclear bombs. Senator Kerry called it unacceptable, Jack Straw in London called it nuts, but others are wondering how seriously to take it.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times however looks at recent history and current politics, and finds the Bushite bombing entirely credible. His column ends:

As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops."

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?

William Rivers Pitt begins his rumination arguing that the Bushites won't do it, but admits:

Things have come to a pretty pass in the United States of America when the first question you have to ask yourself on matters of war and death is, "Just how crazy are these people?" Every cogent estimate sees Iran's nuclear capabilities not becoming any kind of reality for another ten years, leaving open a dozen diplomatic and economic options for dealing with the situation. There is no good reason for attacking that country, but there are a few bad reasons to be found.

Jim Lobe at Tom Paine.com provides a good round-up of the "will/won't" arguments, including a variation on the Nixonian "Let them think I'm a Madman" strategy. The idea is to leak these stories, hoping the Iranians will believe the Bushites are crazy enough to do it, even though they aren't. Why would they believe it? Well, because the Bushites have proven themselves to be crazy enough to do it. Which sort of blunts the argument, don't you think?

A New York Times editorial wanders through the same speculations, adding that if these stories were "psychological warfare" as Iran said, the smart thing would have been to leak word of the plans only to the Iranians, through their spies and allies. Making it public doesn't help much, so either the Bushites are acting stupidly or they really are crazy enough to do it.

The Times pretty much ignores the New Yorker piece and the nuclear option. That's a mistake. The folly and consequences of nuclear war must be kept in public consciousness constantly, especially now.

Meanwhile, the Bushites want to create the largest non-nuclear explosion on U.S. soil this summer as part of its "bunkerbuster" program, on land claimed by the Shoshone. The feds have already allegedly dumped nuclear waste and perhaps conducted secret nuclear explosions in the area, and the Shoshone have had enough.

As for the role of nuclear power generation in the future, to help lessen fossil fuel burning and global heating, check out this post and comments at World Changing.