Polimom tries to avoid coffee and scary movies just before bed, but last night, I broke my own rules by reading the ultimate horror story: Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker. (If you haven’t read it yet, you should go there now, in the daylight.)
Hersh writes that the U.S. is planning a preemptive attack on Iran, to head off their development of nuclear weapons. All by itself, that neither surprises nor particularly scares me. Of course there would be plans afoot; modern “diplomacy” with a recalcitrant government requires carrots and sticks. What bothers Polimom is the size of the stick being waved:
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
The nuclear stick. Oh yes indeed, that worries Polimom a great deal, particularly in combination with the coming bomb test north of Las Vegas on June 2. There seems little doubt that the test is planned with Iran’s underground sites in mind. Just as horrifying, though, is this tidbit from Hersh’s article:
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”
Oh nonononono…. We’ve heard this song before, remember? Is it possible that the administration learned nothing from Iraq? Polimom believes a preemptive attack on Iran would have precisely the opposite effect; the Iranians are far more likely to unify against an attacker.
The real problem here is that there’s also little doubt that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. They are incredibly dangerous. In the short term, however, it’s probably Israel that is at the most risk. Does anybody really think Israel will hesitate to defend itself? I don’t.
In parenting terms, this is the most dire of ultimatums. If Bush is talking about preemptive attack on Iran – and employing the nuclear option – he’s serious.
The only good news about the entire scenario is that Iran, too, will know that this is not a bluff.
Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in.”
I don’t think so. Polimom suspects that Ahmadinejad has learned what much of the world has: whether one thinks Bush is a brave visionary or a lunatic with a messiah complex, he’s probably not rattling a sabre — and he won’t wait for everybody else to fall in line before acting, either.
No, I don’t think this is a bluff; as I wrote last week, Iran is going to have to blink first. The alternative is World War III.
* * * * *
The Moderate Voice has a comprehensive post about this situation, and includes a cross-section of the blogosphere reaction. I recommend it strongly, because it’s the only thing that allowed me to fall asleep last night (thanks, Joe!).
Update: More here from the Washington Post, and a long blast from Rep. Ron Paul, including some background history, here.
There’s also some “calm down” input from Eric Schmitt at the NY Times, who writes:
But four Pentagon, military and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran and who were granted anonymity to speak candidly rejected the article’s contention that the Bush administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran.
(HT: Rawstory via TMV)