War on Iran?

Over the weekend, two oped pieces in major U.S. newspapers came out strongly against military action against Iran. In the Los Angeles Times, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who attacks the Bush doctrine of pre-emption for being dangerous (relying on spywork that is never completely accurate), for discouraging diplomacy and encouraging the very behavior the world is worried about, seeking and possessing nuclear weapons, for only with such weapons is a nation safe from preemption.

But Feinstein, who has been keeping an eye on Bushite nuclear weapons development when few others have, saves her most scathing pronouncements for the possibility that the Bushites intend to use nuclear weapons against Iran:

The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.

There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.

As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.

In the New York Times, former national coordinator for security and counterterrorism Richard Clarke and former National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism Steven Simon write that in the 1990s they were party to a White House inquiry into bombing Iran. The result was " the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States." They warn that today the resulting warfare, quickly involving escalation on both sides, would be more costly and disastrous than Iraq.

But after the near unanimous condemnation of the attack Iran plan this past week--including the story that Prime Minister Tony Blair has told Bush that Great Britain won't support or aid in such a war-- isn't all this just unnecessary rhetoric? Not according to William Arkin at the Washington Post, who writes a piece that is meant to support Pentagon contingency planning for war on Iraq and indeed just about anybody else, especially (he says) now that the U.S. won't wait to be attacked and "is a first strike nation." He also supports letting potential enemies know that these plans exist, as a deterrent. However all that is viewed, there are several particularly chilling paragraphs:

The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one.

And his final graph:

The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday's question marks into today's seeming certainty.

Like the Iraq panic, the frenzy to attack Iran is being driven at least partly by exiles with an ax to grind, such as the son of the deposed Shah. As Senator Feinstein noted, to start a war based solely on spying, that spywork must be infallible. That sure didn't turn out to be the case in Iraq. We're in even murkier waters in Iran. Of course, we did have somebody watching nuclear developments in Iran, but thanks to the Bushites, she's no longer working for the CIA in that capacity. Valerie Plame was her name.

Though the rhetoric is heated, partly because the Bushites have gone to war disastrously before, the situation is complex, as outlined in this useful overview from the Guardian. While some insist that planning to attack Iran has gone far beyond mere contingency planning, there is great conflict in Washington, even within the Bush administration and Pentagon. And also to the point, conflict within Iran and the Iranian government.

All this is happening when most experts say that Iran is five to ten or more years away from a useable nuclear weapon, if the weapons program they claim they don't have exists and runs smoothly for that period. While some estimates are shrinking, they are easily traced back to within the Bushite camp. Which in itself is an ominous reminder of the run-up to Iraq.

Stay tuned.