The GOP Loves War

Sen. Lindsey Graham isn’t the only GOP politician still wanting to “bomb, bomb Iran”:

If sanctions fail, and Iran’s going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state that could would want a nuclear weapon. Israel would be more imperiled. The world would change dramatically for the worse. And if we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities, we should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.

This, of course, ignores reality…

First is the assumption that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, Israel would be “imperiled”.  Israel is in no danger of Iran launching a nuclear weapon at it even if they obtain “the bomb”.  History bears this out as the only time an atomic weapon was ever used during wartime was when the United States bombed Japan, and, that was only because Japan had no way to retaliate in kind.  For Iran to launch at Israel would assure its total destruction as a country.

Second is the assumption that nuclear weapons are a “first strike” weapon.  In a world where most nations have nuclear weapons, they have simply been a deterrent to invasion by other nations.

Next, we must realize that our military has no ability to effect more than air attacks against Iran.  Our fighting forces have been drained to the point of being broken from fighting two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our reserves are seriously depleted if not non-existent.  Unlike Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, it would take massive air strikes on Iran to weaken it, and, would only turn an already hostile Middle East further against our nation.  

While Iran might have limited ability to forestall any air strikes, it does have the  ability to retaliate against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.  With the bulk of our forces locked to bases and FOB’s, they would literally become “fish in a barrel” against sustained missile strikes.  Not to mention that threat of an air war against Iran alone is enough incentive for Iran to work to get a nuclear weapon.      

Arab nations have health and environmental incentive, as well.  A nuclear strike on Israel will poison water supplies.  Nuclear fallout would drift into Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.  So, it isn’t like these nations would sit silent if, indeed, Iran gained a nuclear weapon and threatened to use it.  

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seemed to agree. “It’s an all-or-nothing deal,” Chambliss said, explaining that Iran’s nuclear capability can’t be wiped out with an air strike. “A full-out military strike is what it would take.”

And, what would be the backlash if the United States did, indeed, conduct an all-out strike against Iran?  Would we prompt China, who holds a lot of our debt for our war in Iraq, to dump that debt on the world market destroying our already fragile economy?  Would a full-out strike finally collapse Pakistan’s government to extremist’s, putting their nuclear arsenal into play against us?  And if China becomes involved due to its dependence on Iranian oil, would Russia join with China considering the joint-military exercises they ran when we invaded Iraq?  What then, of Britain, France, and Germany?  Would this all-out strike push the world to WWIII?  

These are questions that politicians like Sen. Lindsey Graham aren’t providing answers to, mainly because, nobody is asking them these questions when they spout their “let’s bomb someone” rhetoric.  These GOP politicians go onto Faux News and spout this rhetoric in a forum they are not only not called out for it, but, encouraged to do it.

We were able to invade Iraq because we had a fresh military invading a country already weakened from years of war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, and 12 years of bombing of their military and resources after 1991.  We do not have that situation with Iran.

In fact, it was the United States working to help Iran gain nuclear technology in 1957, four years after the CIA overthrew the Iranian government, and continued to do so for almost 20 years.

Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear energy trace to 1957, in connection with a push from the Eisenhower administration to increase its military, economic, and civilian assistance to Iran. On March 5 of that year, the two countries announced a “proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy” under the auspices of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. The deal was intended to open doors for U.S. investment in Iran’s civilian nuclear industries, such as health care and medicine. The plan also called for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to lease Iran up to 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for research purposes. Two years after the agreement was made public, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi ordered the establishment of an institute at Tehran University–the Tehran Nuclear Research Center–and negotiated with the United States to supply a five-megawatt reactor. Over the next decade the United States provided nuclear fuel and equipment that Iran used to start up its research. Gary Samore, President Obama’s top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told CFR.org in 2008 that the cooperation was meant to assist Iran in developing nuclear energy while steering Tehran away from indigenous fuel-cycle research. On July 1, 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the day it opened for signature. Six years later Iran completed its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

By the 1970s, France and Germany joined the United States in providing assistance to the Iranian nuclear program. Regional wars and predictions of a looming energy shortfall prompted the shah to explore alternative forms of power production. In March 1974, he established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and announced plans to “get, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts [of electricity] from nuclear power stations.” By the mid-1970s, Iran had signed contracts with Western firms–including France’s Framatome and Germany’s Kraftwerk Union–for the construction of nuclear plants and supply of nuclear fuel.

History is, of course, irrelevant to the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

I also find it interesting that Plutonium Page has up this diary at Daily Kos where, once again, she cites the Iranian facility at Qom.  I find it interesting because of the comment section where Plutonium Page again makes the claim that Iran violated the NPT and IAEA safeguards.  I covered that here from the very author and article cited:

In March 2007, however, Iran announced to the IAEA that it was suspending the implementation of the modified Code 3.1 and reverting back to the original form. The United States has claimed that Iran started building the Qom facility before this date. If this claim is correct-and the IAEA should try and verify it-then Iran obviously breached its obligations.

However, even if Iran only decided to build the facility after March 2007 then the charge of non-compliance still stands because Iran is not permitted to modify its subsidiary arrangements without the permission of the IAEA. Indeed, when Iran first announced it was “suspending” application of the modified Code 3.1, the IAEA stated that:

   In accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, agreed Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally; nor is there a mechanism in the Safeguards Agreement for the suspension of provisions agreed to in Subsidiary Arrangements.[2]

Iran justified its action by saying that the modification to Code 3.1 had not been ratified by the Majlis.[3]

The problem with this argument is that, like every other state, Iran did not ask its parliament, the Majlis, to ratify its original Subsidiary Arrangements! To claim that a modification to these arrangements requires ratification is therefore absurd.

Moreover, Iran-like every other state-modifies its Subsidiary Arrangements regularly, without asking for parliamentary ratification. For example, as the size of its enrichment plant at Natanz has grown, Iran has (reluctantly) agreed to various improvements in safeguards. These improvements required modifications of the Subsidiary Arrangements, but Iran did not ask the Majlis to ratify them.

Like every other state modifies its Subsidiary Arrangements regulary without asking for parliamentary ratification.  Period.  End of discussion.  Iran is being held to a standard regularly ignored by other nations that signed the NPT.

It’s hard to stem a drumbeat for war with Iran when even progressive’s are unable to grasp facts written in an article they cite.