Oct 26 2007

Is Bush trying to surreptitiously fund an attack on Iran?

We all know that Bush wants $196,000,000,000 more for his Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, but something curious was tucked into the funding request. According to ABC News:

The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.

The MOP is the the military’s largest conventional bomb, a super “bunker-buster” capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.”

ABC called CENTCOM to ask about it. CENTCOM said they’d look into it and call back. They haven’t yet.

Congressional Quarterly adds:

In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said the MOP could prove useful against other targets, notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be producing nuclear weapons materials.

“A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or North Korea,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the conservative military think tank the Lexington Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense contractors.

“Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of military action is receding as the Pyongyang government becomes more tractable,” said Thompson, referring to recent progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs.

How about Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility?

“You’d use it on Natanz,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. “And you’d use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly.”

And you can read more about the MOP at the GlobalSecurity.org website.

Pike does point out that such a bombing raid should be launched in secret, and that the funding request would seem to telegraph the intent to make such a bombing raid, which raises questions about whether or not there really is such intent. Of course, that assumes that Bush Administration military planners are something other than utterly inept; and there is no evidence on which to base such an assumption.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports:

The Bush administration plans to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, according to senior administration officials.

The package, scheduled to be announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country’s military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, the officials said.

Because Iran is such a grave threat.

“The policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world, because the combination of Iranian terrorism, Iranian repression at home and the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology — technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon — is a very dangerous mix,” Rice said yesterday in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Wow! Graver than Iraq! Possibly graver than the increasing tensions with Russia. Graver than the actual terrorists who actually attacked us on Septmeber 11, 2001- who had nothing to do with Iran, and who are still on the loose. Iranian terrorism? For example, um… uh… Well, let’s just skip over that part. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons? Well, the U.N.’ Nobel Peace Prize winning chief arms inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that program’s purported threat is ovestated. And, of course, it’s not like Rice has any known credibility problems.

Will the attack happen? None of us knows. Unlike with the Iraq product line, the Iran marketing campaign is not working. But it’s clear that Bush and Cheney want this war. Will they do it without any international or domestic support? That is the question.


(note: Mishima covered this, this morning, but I think it deserves an essay of its own)

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. is of the charts now.

    I would ask if they think there will be no consequences for this…but we already know the answer.

  2. drop a “Daisy Cutter” on someone he’ll start a new land war to justify it.

    Rosa Brooks says it best in the LA Times today…Straightjacket bush

    • Edger on October 26, 2007 at 00:58
    • #

    James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
    Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA
    Consequences of an Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

    Contrary to popular belief, it appears that Israel’s attack on Osirak [Iraq’s nuclear reactor] in June of 1981 did nothing to hinder Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Although it temporarily set back its capabilities, it served rather to reinforce and increase Saddam’s desire for a nuclear arsenal.
    …
    With regard to Iran, there is no reason to believe that an attack on the facilities in Bushehr, Arak, or Natanz would have any different consequence than the Osirak example. Such an attack would likely embolden and enhance Iran’s nuclear prospects in the long term. In the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program, which IAEA inspectors have yet to find, a preemptive attack by the United States or Israel would provide Iran with the impetus and justification to pursue a full blown covert nuclear deterrent program, without the inconvenience of IAEA inspections. Such an attack would likely be seen as an act of aggression not only by Iran but most of the international community, and only serve to weaken any diplomatic coalition currently available against Iran.

    The most troubling aspect of such a scenario is that, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran is not dependent on foreign imports for nuclear technology and already has available the raw materials, and most of the designs and techniques, required to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Iran has the necessary know-how and has already produced every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle.[31] Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas.[32] Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Even if Natanz, Arak, and Bushehr were destroyed in a preemptive strike, Iran probably has duplicate equipment that can be activated and has the know-how to produce more, to pursue a more vigorous and unabated nuclear weapons program in the long term.

    Effect on Iran’s Relationship Vis-a-Vis the IAEA and International Coalition

    In the event of an unprovoked preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, Iran could justifiably argue that it requires nuclear weapons to guard against aggression and protect its sovereignty, effectively announcing its intention to withdraw from the NPT and altering the current international dynamic. Especially given the recent lack of substantiation in the Iraqi WMD case, such a strike would undoubtedly result in U.S. or Israeli diplomatic isolation.

    The practical diplomatic consequences of a preemptive attack in Iran are worth considering. In the aftermath of such a strike, it is highly unlikely that the United States would be able to convince members of the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. Without international sanctions, Iran will be able to allocate greater financial and human resources to its nuclear program. If the Iraqi Osirak example is any indication, the size of Iran’s nuclear program would probably increase dramatically, as the Iranian government touts an expanded nuclear program as the key to deterring Iran’s enemies.

    As the target of an unprovoked attack, Iran gains by pointing to justifications for escaping the constraints of the NPT, therefore becoming a much greater proliferation threat. Unrestrained, the Iranians will have the means and technology to eventually manufacture gas centrifuges and mine, mill, convert, and enrich uranium. Even under IAEA intrusive inspections, Iran has assembled more than 920 gas centrifuges, 120 of which were assembled in just two and a half months, between November 2003 and mid-January 2004.[33] To enrich enough HEU to make one nuclear bomb requires running 750 gas centrifuges for one year.[34] If Iran seceded from the NPT, and increased the size of its nuclear program, it would be able to manufacture and assemble many more gas centrifuges, and therefore rapidly enrich uranium. Once sufficient fissile material is obtained, designing a basic nuclear warhead can be easily accomplished. In the absence of intrusive inspections or threat of UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability would be to occupy Iran, a very unlikely occurrence given the serious challenges already faced by the United States in a smaller, weaker Iraq.

    Effect on U.S.-Russian Relations

    Attacking Iranian nuclear facilities also has the potential of igniting a diplomatic crisis between the United States and Russia. The Russian Federation is not only Iran’s foremost supplier of nuclear technology and training, it is reported that hundreds of Russian scientists and technicians currently work in Bushehr. A preemptive attack on Bushehr may kill a large number of Iranian and Russian personnel; the ensuing diplomatic crisis could seriously affect not only Russian-U.S. trade but also cooperation on international matters, including the war on terrorism.

    A pre-emptive attack on George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s psychotic fantasies would result in much better consequences.

  4. Actually thats all I have to say. No linkys  no qualifiers just madness. No tribes no threats no anything just fucking madness. Do we sit idle and worry about our crap, or do we as a people say enough to this shit. Nothing, yes nothing, a lie , a fake a bipartisan con allows this to happen while we debate the best political recourse to madness.There is none fight this, it’s madness. 

    • snud on October 26, 2007 at 02:16
    • #

    The guy is psychotic.

  6. Good thing someone’s going through that supplemental request with a fine tooth comb. I wonder what other curious requests are tucked into it?

    & that picture of Bush and Ahmadinejad in the ABC News link is very odd. My day just got more surreal. 

    • lezlie on October 26, 2007 at 03:25
    • #

    shit in the woods?  Seriously?!

    Time for Nancy to take impeachment out of the drawer, dust it off, and put it back on the fucking table where it should have been since January!!

  8. outtahere.

    • Edger on October 26, 2007 at 15:04
    • #

    really friggin’ pissed at these assholes. Armageddon to my limit of tolerance here.

    “The Whole World IS Watching”

    • Edger on October 26, 2007 at 17:37
    • #

Comments have been disabled.