Daily Kos

Cheney to Generals: Prepare to Attack Iran

Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:48:41 PM PDT

in the event of another "9/11 type attack" according to Philip Giraldi, in the print edition of the American Conservative (courtesy Justin Logan). And when he says attack Iran, he means ATTACK IRAN!
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

More after the break . . .

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Two things: First, Giraldi is a former CIA officer (specifically a CIA counterterrorism specialist according to his bio at American Conservative), so he probably has contacts among the intelligence services and the military that few journalists in Washington can match. Second, the leak of this information appears to be coming from the military officers in charge of drawing up this plan, or at least with someone familiar with their views. This means the military is starting to become very ansty at the direction the Bush administration is taking the country.

The military has seen up close and personal what the Iraq War has done to the Army and Marines with their extended and multiple tours of duty in theater. They also have to be scared shitless about the possible consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran. The blowback would be massive. Iran, if it has any nukes would surely use them against American Forces in the Gulf. I leave to your imagination what the results of that would be.

Even if Iran doesn't have the ability to respond in kind, however, the entire region would go up in flames. The shia in Iraq would be outraged and some of them (Sadr's militia perhaps?) would likely begin their own violent resistance to the American occupation. Meanwhile recruitment of Muslims to Al Qaida or other terrorist organizations would shoot up tremendously, and any allies we still have would likely abandon us in horror at the breach of the nuclear threshold by the US.

Longer term? We might see the more extremist elements of the Pakistani miltary depose Mussharef and begin to covertly aid Al Qaida, perhaps even providing them with the means to attack the US with nuclear or biological weapons. We would also likely face an oil boycott from OPEC, if merely to satisfy their own populations demand for Jihad against us. We can't know all the consequences, frankly, but once you unleash nukes on the Middle East, a positive result for our national security is the least likely scenario.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 398 comments

  •  If someone has previously diaried about this (4.00 / 77)

    I'll take this down. I didn't see anything here however.

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:49:24 PM PDT

    •  You should request mojo here. (4.00 / 1)

      People need to know about this insanity. Thanks for the diary.

      "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

      by Thistime on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:43:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While this is interesting.. (4.00 / 2)

        there is no need to get our knickers in a twist quite yet.

        The Pentagon draws up plans like this all the time.  They are mainly to see what the force estimates would be or to update previous plans target packages.

        So this may look a lot more sinister to the average civilian then it really is.  And sometimes our reaction TO this kind of thing can make us look a bit foolish.

        Keep an eye on this?  Sure.  Get upset over it?  No, at least not yet.

        Because folks?

        No matter what Cheney would like to think he don't have the ground forces available to do squat diddle with our forces stretched the way they are.

        All this deployment plan is going to do is allow the Pentagon to drive a shiv in between the ribs of the administration for being a bunch of trigger happy morons.  

        •  Actually, they possibly could (none / 0)

          I've heard that there is a plan to reposition some of the troops in Iraq into Azerbaijan.  That the Azerbaijanis have already agreed to this in exchange for something I'm sorry I forget, it was about a month ago I read it.

          The Plan goes like this:  Our airpower can reach from Azerbaijani airbases to Tabriz and Tehran.  Our troops can thus sweep down and claim both major cities.  Meanwhile, Marines land and take the port cities to keep the Gulf under control.

          What then?  Hell, since when does Bush give a damn about little details like that?

          Of course, I don't even remember where I read this, I just remember the plan.  So sue me if it's not what they do ;)

          "Take whatever you can, Steal whatever you can't take, Kill what you can't steal so no one else can have it." - Republican Business Philosophy

          by Pen on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 12:05:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This would seem to be part...... (none / 1)

            Of the "provoke WW3 and win" scenario. Here's the chain of events :

            1. 2nd 9-11 type strike on the US

            2. Unprovoked US attack on Iran, including with Nuclear weapons.

            3. Iran retaliates, and possibility even of attacks on US mainland by terrorist groups connected or not to Iranian government, leading to......

            4. Iran is a terrorist nation !  - 101st fighting keyboarders dance a victory jig. Massive US violations of international law are conveniently ignored ( by some  US conservatives, at least ) .

            5. US, thus "justified", ramps up regime change ops against Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.....
          •  not remotely possible (4.00 / 2)

            There are multiple problems with this Azerbaijan scenario. Iran has standard diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan, whom they helped during their war with Armenia back in the 1990's. So, whils the US has an airbase there, don't forget that Azerbaijan is a permissive environment for the Iranians to operate in as well. It would be impossible for the US to do any of this in secret as their base is going to be a target of Iranian surveillance - add to that Iranian access to Russian and Chinese intelligence sources and they have a pretty clear picture of the disposition of US forces on the ground in Azerbaijan.

            The population of Teheran and Tabriz is probably 4 times as great as that of the Sunni triangle. There are basically 2 roads that are usable to move troops from Azerbaijan to Iran - IED alley - as the terrain is mountainous and difficult. This makes an invasion down that route perilous to say the least. The force required to accomplish this would be at least the size of that mustered for the first Gulf War ( ie 500,000 ) - and there will be absolutely no chance of keeping this secret or getting any assistance from any other nation on the face of this particular planet.

            Given that the marines are unable to control small cities in Anbar province, it is unlikely that they could take and hold large port cities in Iran, where opposition to their presence would be near 100%.

            •  not likely (none / 0)

              It's highly unlikely we will be able to supply troops or do an offensive trust from the east. are we going to airlift tank to azerbeijan and afghanistan? inserting a couple of guys probably, but not meaningfull military trust.

              They all going to break down and blown up to pieces before making it to Iranian border.

              Pakistan is the only country with major seaport that  can be used as entry point. But Mussaraf is comitting political suicide if he gives permission.

              Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

              by fugue on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe (none / 0)

              the are not talking about ground war or occupation, we can certainly Bomb Iran and many other nations back to stone age

              American dream is a myth!

              by brown american on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:21:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  what is (none / 0)

              stopping us from bombing the whole middle east back to stone age? Totally nuke it, wait for the radiation to clear up and take over the whole place and own all the middle eastern oil.In the meantime we have enough oil reserves while counties like china will starve.
              that solves the middle east problem, islamist terrorist problem and challenge by china problem.
              Since this  nuke iran is a  a post second  9/11 attack senerio,we would be fighting a just war!

              American dream is a myth!

              by brown american on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what's stopping. (none / 0)

                Well rumor has it, Iran already has 2 plutonium based nuke. With that they can nuke Israel nuclear reactor.

                That is the only stopping Bush right now. (maybe add the fact that Russia, China and Europe are backig Iran.)

                Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

                by fugue on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:39:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I remember... (none / 0)

                  ...reading an article in Scientific American back in the late '70's.  Apparently some scientists had done a little calculating, and the very best way to inflict maximum nuclear damage would be to nuke a powerplant.  The radioactive "footprint" would grow synergistically, and any prevailing winds would do an interestingly thorough job of distributing the multiple contaminants downwind.

                  As I lived in Chicago at the time, it was kinda scary, considering the ring of nuke plants that fed the city's electrical appetite.

                  And nukes themselves vary not only in size and scale, but in the nature of their contaminants - some are far worse than others.

          •  I'm Not Sure (none / 0)

            http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050715/pl_afp/usuzbekistankyrgyzstan_050715005937

            why we need a base(s)in Azerbaijan when our military has already taken over old Soviet bases in Uzbekistan and Krygistan, spending millions of dollars to renovate them.. also spending millions to pay thugs like Karimov for permission to use his base.. setting up a long term contract to do so.

            "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

            by Superpole on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:53:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  not likely. (none / 0)

            we don't have the manpower, and that is the weak spot.

            Our total combat reserves are under 3 divisions.  The Iranian army is approaching 60 divisions...

            The invasion route from Azerbaijan is mountainous... gives infantry one hell of an advantage against our mech heavy force.  If we redeploy forces from Iraq then the 50,000 man Shia militia that Iran trained and sent across the border after the invasion will gut our supply lines.

            And the poor bastards that are stuck in Iraq are going to be stuck performing the road company version of Fort Apache....

            In order to invade Iran we are going to need to increase the size of the US army by about 350,000 men at the minimum.

            Now is it possible that the administration will do it anyway?

            Sure, never ever under estimate the power of human stupidity.

        •  It would seem that Cheney's tasking nuclear (none / 0)

          response would handle the problem of not having troops.  If we have nuked the "shock and awe" out of Iran, how many troops would be needed?  

          So Dr. Strangelove lives!

          The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

          by macmcd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:57:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are absolutely right (none / 0)

          The Pentagon has plans for attacks on nearly every country from North Korea to Canada. While I don't trust th administration, they ay not attack Iran. At least not soon.
        •  Ding! (none / 0)

          yeah - I think people are getting a little worked up over something that is rather routine.  IMHO this is not a front page story.

          onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

          by atomicBirdsong on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:09:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Pentagon draws up (none / 0)

          war plans on the order of the VICE-PRESIDENT?????
    •  Kssp it up (none / 1)

      Don't take it down.

      This is likely to be on the front page when it has been read by enough people.

      "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

      by Frank Palmer on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:44:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know what this is??? (4.00 / 4)

      Wag the f*ing elephant!

      If this Plame stuff really heats up, nuke Iran and Rove's conspiracy becomes small potatoes!!

      Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

      by digital drano on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:59:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're right (4.00 / 3)

        you know why they get away with it? because even though they're privately honest that these offensives are not specific, effective responses to world events, but part of a strategy to shape American behavior and opinion and achieve strategic goals with respect to the US and Israel, most Americans are too "sensible" to believe what's happening.

        If three depressed Nation of Islam black kids born and bred in Harlem, or three addled Earth Liberation Fronters were to blow themselves up in New York, a large part of the American public would suppot responding to even such domestic terrorism by invading Iran.

    •  Since when did the Office of the VP (4.00 / 8)

      Give orders to the military. He isn't the Commander in Chief (or is he). The generals may also be pissed at having to take orders from the VP, it sets up a whole new precedent.

      PS
      Why don't you cross post this on several other blogs if you haven't already. (I'm coming to this late):{

      If he shows vision, he lacks substance. If he gives details, he's wonky. If he walks on water, he can't swim. DBunn at DKos

      by TexDem on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 04:01:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I posted this to Booman Tribune also (none / 1)

        "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

        by Steven D on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 04:03:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since the Iraq war... (none / 1)

        He would have done it in 1990 if he could have, too.
      •  The emperor has no command-and-control. (none / 1)

        (we saw that also when he was bicycling during a breach of airspace in Washington.)
      •  It sets up a whole new president. n/t (none / 0)

      •  Is the VP also in charge of war games? (none / 1)

        INN World Report tonight ran excerpts from a 9/11 hearing/meeting? (missed the first 5 minutes) and one of the speakers talked about how on 9/11 all the airforce were busy with war games and Cheney was running the show. Anyone heard about this? And is that the VP's job to oversee war games?

        Even Pollyanna would have a hard time being sunny about this administration.

        by vlogger on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:37:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's been all over, check any 911 site (none / 0)

          But what is curious to me also, does the president as commander-in-chief have the authority to delegate his responsibilities to the Vice President? (I've never heard the term 'Vice commander-in-chief). If he has that authority, mustn't such a delegation be explicit? If it isn't explicit how do you (and Congress, and the military) know who's running the place. We've all heard Cheney and Bush differ on a variety of subjects, who of them are you (and Congress, and the military) taking 'orders' from?

          Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

          by high5 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 05:39:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clear chains of command... (none / 0)

            ...always break down just before civil wars or the institution of totalitarianism all over the world and throughout history. This is truly scary stuff.  In the wider scheme, we could be entering an age when the average American no longer has the luxury of Monday morning quarterbacking of wars far, far away but has to deal with some level of war at home.  War, by the way, means deprivation and disease just as much as bombs and bullets.  How do you think the average American would feel about having to wait in a 24-hour gas line the way the average Iraqi does... or not being able to find a cheeseburger for that matter?

            Hundreds of years from now, historians will be talking about how the Bush administration paved the way for totalitarianism and war in a nation that had enjoyed 140 years of peace and relative prosperity.     Most people have no idea of just how profoundly our way of life will be affected by this shit.  

            In every stage of these Oppressions...: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury." DoI, TJ

            by ChuckLin on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 07:37:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  HUH!!?? (none / 0)

      he military has seen up close and personal what the Iraq War has done to the Army and Marines with their extended and multiple tours of duty in theater. They also have to be scared shitless about the possible consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran. The blowback would be massive. Iran, if it has any nukes would surely use them against American Forces in the Gulf.

      if you believe even 1/10th of this do you really you, your family and precious homeland will untouched?

      you americans better get a clue - and be pretty damn quick about it.

  •  Wow (4.00 / 3)

    Incredibly scary.  I hope someone high up in the military will resist this, and go public.
    •  Just watch - (4.00 / 3)

      if this is indeed true, it will be timed to happen sometime in '06 to try to screw with the midterm elections which they are terrified of.

      Then again, I've heard that - like Iraq - we're already in Iran anyway ?  Lemme check on that

      •  Found it (4.00 / 13)

        Seymour Hersh as usual.

        The article's by The Nation's Michael Klare :

        < snip >

        The first step in such a process is to verify the location of possible targets in Iran and to assess the effectiveness of Iranian defenses. The identification of likely targets apparently began late last year, when the Central Intelligence Agency and US Special Operations Forces (SOF) began flying unmanned "Predator" spy planes over Iran and sending small reconnaissance teams directly into Iranian territory. These actions, first revealed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker in January, are supposedly intended to pinpoint the location of hidden Iranian weapons facilities for possible attack by US air and ground forces. "The goal," Hersh explained, "is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision [air] strikes and short-term commando raids."

        It is also probable, says military analyst William Arkin, that CENTCOM is probing Iran's air and shore defenses by sending electronic surveillance planes and submarines into--or just to the edge of--Iranian coastal areas. "I would be greatly surprised if they're not doing this," he said in an interview. "The intent would be to 'light up' Iranian radars and command/control facilities, so as to pinpoint their location and gauge their effectiveness."

        < snip >

        That such efforts are indeed under way is confirmed by reports in the international press that Pentagon officials have met with their Israeli counterparts to discuss the possible participation of Israeli aircraft in some of these scenarios. Although no public acknowledgment of such talks has been made, Vice President Dick Cheney declared in January that "the Israelis might well decide to act first" if Iran proceeded with the development of nuclear weapons--obviously hinting that Washington would look with favor upon such a move.

        There are also indications that the CIA and SOF officials have met with Iranian opposition forces--in particular, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK)--to discuss their possible involvement in commando raids inside Iran or a full-scale proxy war. In one such report, Newsweek disclosed in February that the Bush Administration "is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use against Tehran." (Although the MEK is listed on the State Department's roster of terrorist groups, its forces are "gently treated" by the American troops guarding their compound in eastern Iraq, Newsweek revealed.)

        < snip >

        . . . There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran. But there are many indications that planning for such a move is well under way--and if the record of Iraq (and other wars) teaches us anything, it is that such planning, once commenced, is very hard to turn around. Hence, we should not wait until after relations with Iran have reached the crisis point to advise against US military action. We should begin acting now, before the march to war becomes irreversible.

        Full text

        •  I previously noted (none / 0)

          a very reliable source involved in training of persons who would be involved in an attack says they have been using maps of IRAN for months.

          It is entirely likely that they have already started movement of men and supplies, and that they have been bombing.

          And I think Cheney is impeachment bait for usurping the authority of the president in this regard. Among other things.

          Let's get some Democracy for America

          by murphy on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 06:41:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If we were bombing Iran (none / 1)

            believe me, the world would be hearing about it. Iran would have pictures, would be screaming, and they certainly wouldn't have any problem being believed.

            PLANNING maybe. Actually doing anything more than scouting (if that), I doubt it.

            I doubt we're even moving supplies -- there would be major screaming about that too.

          •  When will this end??? (none / 1)

            We can't get to 2008 soon enough! There is going to be an Impeach Bush DC march on September 23 or 24, BTW. Can we impeach them both?

            Even Pollyanna would have a hard time being sunny about this administration.

            by vlogger on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:42:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Scot Ritter (none / 0)

            has also been saying this for months.  In fact, according to Randi Rhodes, Ritter says we are already sending Special Ops people into Iran to lay the groundwork for the escalation of the "Iran War."  So the war has already started and we are just planning the escalation.

            The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

            by macmcd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:13:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Seven Days in August (4.00 / 2)

      in reverse?

      The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

      by semiot on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:02:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Caveats (4.00 / 11)

    The usual caveats:

    American Conservative is Patrick Buchanan's magazine, etc., etc., etc. and pursues an ideological perspective that is not always on the same side as the truth.

    Interesting to ponder, though, and I saw that Matt Yglesias picked it up on TPMCafe as well, so that lends bit of legitimacy to it anyway.

    It would certainly take a massive airstrike to subdue Iran.  Iran is as big as the entire western U.S., excluding Alaska.  Throw in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana and that's just about as big as that country is.

    "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

    by bink on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:53:36 PM PDT

    •  Well, bink (4.00 / 3)

      You don't actually expect this attack to be successful, do you? I mean, look at Iraq.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:00:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh (4.00 / 3)

        I'm sure they'd kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people.  Does that make it a success?

        "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

        by bink on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:02:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the implications are enormous (4.00 / 3)

          Throw away your passport, Americans around the world would be lynched, embassies torn down brick by brick, terrorists would undoubtedly be given similar weapons to attack the Northeast corridor, subway bombings would be a picnic compared to all this.

          Common sense isn't that common - Voltaire

          by obgynlover on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We're almost there (4.00 / 8)

            I can't help but wonder if the kerfuffle in Sudan was just a hint that the world is losing respect for us. Either that or the Sudanese leader just wanted some alone time with Condi.
          •  and forget about buying oil (none / 1)

            Iran would destroy the Saudi Oil facilities, and close the Strait of Hormuz

            I doubt Hugo Chavez would be willing to sell us much oil after that either

            that SUV you just bought will make a nice storage locker, but not much else

            •  There will still be demand for SUVs (4.00 / 3)

              They will be nearly affordable housing for the middle class

              The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing George W. Bush that he was Jesus

              by Darth Cheney on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 08:15:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So I would have to hitch my poodle to my (none / 0)

                VW beatle.  Or I would just have to push it.

                Sorry to joke about something so horrible to consider.  Five years ago I would never have beleived that the USA would EVER invade a country unless provoked.  Now, in my heart, I know that these people would attack another with nukes just to influence an election.  This is such a dangerous time in our country.  

                The only faint ray of hope is that the sheep who voted for this thuggish bunch are waking up.  Bush's popularity is really low and I think now a majority of the population will accept that this worst case scenario is possible.  That is the only way it can be averted is for enough people to recognize the possibility and to contact their congressional representatives/senators and tell them that we will NOT stand for this kind of thing before it happens.  If there is enough popular and VOCAL resistance to it, then those who are given the orders will have the support not to carry the orders out.  This is faint hope but is a direction to move.

                The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

                by macmcd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:26:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The more civilians you kill (none / 0)

          The greater the success, at least in Cheney World.
      •  What does successful mean? (4.00 / 2)

        The military objective of the attack will probably be to destroy any facilities involved in Iran's WMD program. Measured by that standard, there's a good chance that it will be "successful". Unlike Iraq, Iran is actively developing nuclear technology, and reactors are hard to protect --- especially if Cheney is determined to use nuclear weapons too.

        It won't be successful if they want to "democratize" Iran, win the war in Iraq or prevent terrorism, of course. But the Bush administration hasn't shown much interest in any of those so far. As with Iraq, there's no plan for Iran itself The Day After.

        There probably is a plan for Iran's oil fields. Most of them are located in a fairly small region near the Iraq border (this is what the Iran-Iraq war was all about), so I expect Cheney wants to seize those without occupying the whole country.

    •  And we don't have the troops to occupy Iran. (4.00 / 6)

      Iran is a much tougher opponent than Iraq was.  An attack on Iran is going to be a disaster.  They might do it to distract from RoveGate, to try to get an edge in the 2006 election, or to "Poison the well" in 2008 if a Democrat wins the Presidency.

      The world is pissed at us enough as it is.  If we use a nuke, today's hostility toward the US will look downright friendly by comparison.  It would also create millions of people eager to attack the US.

      It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

      by A Citizen on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:03:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We don't have enough troops to occupy Iraq. (4.00 / 6)

        That didn't stop us before.
      •  Cheney's not interested in occupying Iran (4.00 / 2)

        Please read my analysis, below.  Cheney's not interested in a land invasion of Iran and doesn't think it's necessary.

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:58:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If these sick bastards (4.00 / 5)

          did something like this, our military wouldn't need to go into Iran to fight them. Whoever was left alive would make a fucking bee-line for the Iraq border and invade. We think it's a little dodgy over there now? What about several million Iranians with visions of bloodfeud dancing in their heads?
          This is matched for sheer stupidity only by Tancredo's idea about nuking Mecca. Both of these tasty bits in one week? I, for one, am getting nervous. These pricks always telegraph their moves. They might just be getting the base warmed up to the idea.

          The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

          by justme on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 05:58:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How many troops does it take to go (none / 0)

        nuclear?  Besides now that Iraq is totally f__ked up, why keep troops there?  We can leave, allow the civil war to break out, and allow KGR to take over the oil after the civilians have all destroyed each other.  In Bush-world, that is a successfully run war.

        The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

        by macmcd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I Doubt This Is Something New or Significant (3.90 / 11)

      The military has plans for attacking just about every country in the world.  The Pentagon probably has dusty plans somewhere for retaliating against Andorra and Bhutan.  And I'm sure they've regularly tweaked plans for attacking/retaliating against Iran at least since 1980.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:12:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i would love to see the military's plans (4.00 / 2)

        for attacking Canada, Monaco, and the Vatican

        I got nuthin (-6.88, -6.15)

        by guyermo on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:38:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  hmm... (none / 0)

        ...I wonder what the plans are for a strategic attack on Canada look like.  My beloved is from canada and he said their army consists of 6 tanks, 2 of them in museums.  that's not that impressive after all. :)

        You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

        by DawnG on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:38:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well exactly (none / 1)

        But if this report is true, why update a plan for attacking Iran when you have already likely had a tactical plan in place for years?  And why would the  Veep be involved?

        Not at all saying the report is accurate, but if it is, that should smell mighty fishy to you.

        •  the (none / 1)

          impeachment plans of Harry Waxman and many others should be stepped up. Since Bush and Cheney make money off of war..they don't appear to be fighting on the right side...if impeachmant plans aren't stepped up cabal seems more and more likely.Esp. with Rumsfield's insane idea of closing bases in the northeast ...it is very apparent these guys aren't working for us.
        •  Has someone been checking the sell-by dates (none / 0)

          on some of those old nukes? Might as well fire them off at something fun rather than throw them away.
          These morons are like bored teenagers putting rocks on the railroad tracks. They can't leave well enough alone.

          "Laugh while you can, monkey-boy" - Emilio Lizardo

          by jeno mules on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:44:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  About that (none / 0)

            I also wonder how those ICBM missiles are doing in there silos. Are the technology to get them airborn and away any safer than that which blew up the space shuttle?

            Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

            by high5 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 06:05:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A good point (none / 0)

              They are, I think, powered by solid fuel rockets (IIRC some got the name 'minuteman' because they didn't have to be fuelled before flight, so could be launched in 'just a minute'), like the booster whose faulty o rings caused the Challenger to explode.
              In reality though, they are probably overhauled with expensive regularity; maintaining a rather pointless overkill deterrent is a bottomless well into which dollars must endlessly be poured.

              "Laugh while you can, monkey-boy" - Emilio Lizardo

              by jeno mules on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:11:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Misses the point (4.00 / 6)

        Yes, the Pentagon does have and should have all sorts of plans for all sorts of situations worked out well in advance.

        But that's entirely different than the civilian leadership requesting a plan to attack a country to be used in retaliation for an event even if that country had nothing to do with the event.

        -- E pur si muove.

        by asdfasdf on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:08:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Buchanan's been interestingly anti-Bush (none / 0)

      While of course being a staunch Republican, and interested in having a career as a pundit, author and Presidential nominee, Buchanan's an older model of Republican. He actually believes to some degree in budgetary restraing and a lack of international US military involvement.

      He even wrote a book describing everything Bush Jr. was doing wrong with American policy.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:32:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Buchanan (none / 1)

        in American Conservative and on www.antiwar.com has been consistently and strongly critical of Bush's invasion of Iraq. I found, in the pre-Iraq invasion period, more logic coming from the pages of Buchanan's anti-war American Conservative, than coming from Hilary Clinton's office.

        That said, Buchanan, on televsion especially, has nontheless shamelessly shilled for Bush. Similar to Bush's other invertebrate Republican "enemy", John McCain.

        Cindy McCain: "In Arizona The Only Way To Get Around The State Is By Small Private Plane"

        by assyrian64 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Buchanan is anti-Bush/anti-Neocon everywhere (none / 0)

        except when he is on the Corporate Cable news channels.  
      •  Buchanan's also (none / 0)

        an anti-semite, or at the very least fiercely anti-Israel, which goes a way towards explaining his aversion to our current international policy.  "My enemy's friend is my enemy," or something to that effect...

        Mommy, what's a gagortion?

        by Mr Stupid Head on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 06:52:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Pat Buchanan (none / 0)

      is a vicious wingnut and a seroius racist according to some people.

      But the man has been right on the war and Bush foreign policy in General. And he's not stupid either.

      I think we need to reward good sense no matter what the motive.

    •  His other politics aside (none / 0)

      Pat Buchanan remains a vocal opposition to US intervention in the affairs of other nations and is against the war in Iraq.  The American Conservative seems an appropriate forum to give a heads-up to other conservatives who are at odds with the Bush Administration.
  •  Scary, very scary.... (none / 0)

    Reality is best served in small portions and only to others.

    by 0hio on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:55:04 PM PDT

  •  I say we fight them over here (4.00 / 24)

    so we don't have to fight them over there.

    Indictments.  Soon would be good.

    "Ruling the country is like cooking a small fish." -- Lao Tzu

    by DanielMN on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:58:06 PM PDT

  •  If the Iranians are really annoyed (none / 0)

    and have nuclear weapons (I am not inclined to be sure these reports are true, yet) they might instead use them to neutralize oil transshipment facilities along the other coast of the Persian Gulf, aand save the rest for any American land invasions.

    That would cause us far more serious difficulties.

    •  Choking off the straits (4.00 / 2)

      The Iranians have long recognized taht their exposure in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea is their greatest strategic weakness.  The Shah sought to overcome that by buying advanced US built naval vessels.  Post-revolution, that option was foreclosed, so the Iranians have since acquired a vast array of anti-ship missile systems, both land and ship based.  They've acquired a good number of the old Soviet anti-ship missile cutters, bizarre-looking small craft that carry a single anti-ship cruise missile, they are both fast and so small that they are easily concealed.  Under a tarp at a remote dock, they would look no different from any large dhow. If they sink a supertanker or two (or a US aircraft carrier) in the Straits of Hormuz, that chokes the whole thing off.
      •  ...which would (none / 0)

        send the price of oil into the stratosphere, and deprive Iran's largest markets--most of them European, and the USA not among them--of oil.

        Talk about a Cheney wet dream.

        •  forget oil (none / 0)

          the hormuz strait is the only way we can supply our troop via sea. Once the Iranian close the strait, our troop in Iraq is sitting duck. (forget berlin style air supply. We'll go bankrupt by  third week air lifting fuel and spare parts, let alone additional heavy equipment.)

          Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

          by fugue on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:38:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lovely thought (none / 0)

        gas a hundred bucks a gallon.

        The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

        by semiot on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  wouldn't take nukes to do that (none / 0)

      You'd only need to scuttle a good number of ships in the Straits of Hormuz, (any old rusty hulk would fit the bill, long as it was big enough, and the Straits are pretty shallow waters) and target the Saudi and Kuwaiti pipeline terminals and refineries with conventional/incendiary tipped medium-range ballistic missiles.

      After they got the Straits cleared again, which would take a good bit of time, the rubble of the oil infrastructure would still take years if not decades to rebuild/refit completely.

      And I suspect they probably have a few mines lying around as well, just to make the clearing and reworking project a bit more interesting.

      No more oil-based economy for quite some time in most of the world.  Quick, easy and cheap.  Kind of a big middle finger to rest of us if we get too adventurous out there.

      •  unshinkable destroyer (none / 0)

        straight of hormuz is Iran ace card. There is nothing Bush can do about the fact Iran own the straight and the mountain range.

        Bush can bomb the tiny bits of land to smithering, it'll still be there and Iran can simply repour new concrete building.

        Bush can't use nuke either, cause then the entire striat will be poisoned.

        So, if there is war in that area. Iran wins.

        Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

        by fugue on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:45:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But think ... (none / 0)

        ... of the killing oil companies will make when oil doubles in price overnight!

        "You can't negotiate with reality" - James Kunstler

        by Bob Love on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 04:58:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know what to make of this. (4.00 / 2)

    The attack plans against Iraq have been drawn up long ago, probably during the Carter administration, and have been revised diligently through every administration since. SOP - there are huge attack "books" dealing with most eventualities, that are wargamed and worked out and modified incessantly.

    Which makes this a possible canard ...
    The plans already exist - remember that they were ready to go to Teheran and Damascus in those heady post-toppling of Saddam statue days - that would have been in accordance with detailed plans.

    "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

    by SteinL on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:58:40 PM PDT

    •  The plans have to be different (none / 1)

      The tactical nukes are a Bush-era invention.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan discussed them too (none / 0)

        And that was the cold war.
        •  As SteinL (none / 1)

          Pointed out downthread, yeah, tactical nukes have been around since 1950s. Not bunker busters, but tactical nukes.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:06:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You miss the point : (none / 0)

            To quote asdfasdf from upthread a bit :

            "Yes, the Pentagon does have and should have all sorts of plans for all sorts of situations worked out well in advance.

            But that's entirely different than the civilian leadership requesting a plan to attack a country to be used in retaliation for an event even if that country had nothing to do with the event."

            •  Just a comment ... (none / 0)

              That's exactly what the US did when they attacked Iraq as retaliation for 9/11.

              The military does not launch any attack on its own. It always acts at the behest of the civilian leadership, as a projection of the ambitions of the polity, or to defend it from exterior threats.

              As such, when a people are capable of electing lunatics such as Bush and Cheney to power, with their retinue of addle-brained dreamers, you risk getting your worst nightmare becoming reality, since you weren't paying attention as they lied.
              That's the price of democracy. There's no inherent guarantee that you'll get wise leaders, and visions can soon turn into delusions.

              "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

              by SteinL on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:45:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Iran? (none / 0)

      i lost ya there.
      •  Who lost who ? (none / 0)

        Get out much ?  Iran is mentioned quite pointedly in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" - which has been out for several years now.

        That document has already provided the rough blueprint for Iraq :

        "Although Iraq may provide the immediate justification, Iran presents a much more serious threat" ( rough quote, but basically accurate )

    •  I think I see the "smite Cheney before (none / 0)

      he smites you" in this American Prospect smiting. I must say, though, I was smitten by the apocalyptic vibe here. Very - too, too - "BushCo in the last throes" sort of talk (nudge nudge, wink, wink).

      The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

      by semiot on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 03:11:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sigh (