Bush, The Bomb And Iran

The Nation: Proponent Of Diplomatic Solution For Iran Smeared By White House

(The Nation)  This column was written by Katrina vanden Heuvel.

---

To bomb or not to bomb Iran, that's the question the Bush Administration appears to be debating these days, once again revealing the extraordinary disconnect between the White House and the American people. With a catastrophic occupation of Iraq and polls showing the American public so skeptical about the use of military force that only eight percent support military action against Iran, there is nevertheless a clear and present danger that Cheney and the neocons will again prevail and lead this Administration into another disastrous military misadventure.

The parallels between now and the run-up to the Iraq War are troubling. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the Bush administration in 2003 about the lack of a nuclear program in Iraq and was subsequently attacked for his position by the Bush machine, the neocons and by many in the mainstream media, has now struck a deal with Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program within a defined timeline and improve access for inspectors. ElBaradei has called for a “double time-out” of all enrichment activities and new sanctions.

The result of ElBaradei's attempt to shed light on Iran's nuclear program? More %t by the Bush administration. More outright hit jobs like this one from the Washington Post, or even the more subtle shading by The New York Times that ultimately portrays ElBaradei as a dictatorial loon. The result is, once again, an amplifying of the Administration's drumbeat calling for war.

What is really needed right now - as was the case in 2003 - is for ElBaradei and the IAEA to be given a fair hearing and support. As Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of "Bomb Scare", says, "ElBaradei is doing what any diplomatic leader should do: talking directly to a nation to find a way to resolve difficult issues short of the use of force… He's painfully aware of the lessons of the pre-Iraq War period. Then, he was convinced that there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. He told the UN Security Council that in his reports of January and March 2003. But could he have done more to prevent a disastrous and unnecessary war? Weren't others too quiet, too complacent to stay in their assigned roles? He does not want to see this happen again, with even more catastrophic consequences."

Had ElBaradei's work been heeded before, imagine the treasure, the lives - not to mention our international reputation and security - that would have been saved. But instead of learning from the current tragedy in Iraq, and taking responsibility, this administration continues to build on its legacy of arrogance and the media once again accepts the Administration line or fails to ask tough questions - making it more difficult for the IAEA to play the vital role that it could.

"Administration officials, including Secretary Rice, attacked the credibility of the director-general [in 2003] too," Cirincione says. "The Washington Post also blasted ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment. They were dead wrong. But this hasn't stopped them from attacking with guns blazing again. ElBaradei's record is far better on these issues than either the secretary of state's or the Washington Post's. You would think they would have some humility given the magnitude of their past mistakes. But some people have no shame."

In an excellent piece for Salon.com , Steven Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, lays out the efforts by Cheney and the neocons to promote a strike against Iran by either Israel or the U.S. - perhaps through "some kind of ‘accidental'… contrived confrontation." A former administration official suggested to Clemons that Bush has now received a memo on "a bleak binary choice" - either take military action against Iran or accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. According to the official, Rice was to develop a "third option," but the official predicted that option would be "a corpse." "I don't see how we come out of this without military action," the official said.

Cirincione takes issue with the binary, either/or option. "U.S. hardliners are presenting a false, binary choice: either Iran buckles under the pressure of sanctions, or the U.S. will be forced to attack," he says. "Since they don't believe Iran will shut down its enrichment plant, then we must attack. This logic is the result of another false choice: either we attack Iran or Iran will get a nuclear bomb. Missing from the equation is direct U.S.-Iran negotiations. The sanctions are having an impact, but it's a mistake to believe that sanctions alone can compel a nation to comply or collapse. They never have. Sanctions can be a prod towards a negotiated compromise. What is missing now is the direct U.S.-Iranian talks that could forge such a compromise. ElBaradei is opening up that option. His lead should be followed by the United States, not scorned…. At the very least, we should try talking to a nation before we attack it."

The fulminations of Ahmadinejad against Israel aren't to be ignored. As Richard Falk reported in The Nation last year, "Such hostility [as Ahmadinejad's] would agitate the security concerns of any state, especially one that has faced threats throughout its history, as has Israel." But, as Falk and others have pointed out, the reality regarding Iran as a nuclear threat needs to be looked at squarely. Representative Dennis Kucinich has been at the forefront of that effort, as was evident in a hearing he conducted in October 2006 which I wrote about here. Distinguished witnesses at that hearing - including Cirincione, former IAEA/UNSCOM Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector, Dr. David Kay, and Colonel Sam Gardiner (Ret.) - agreed that Iran is at least 5 years, but more likely 10 or more years, away from producing weapons-grade nuclear materials.

And then there are the consequences of a strike against Iran. As Cirincione testified at the Kucinich hearing, "If you like the war in Iraq, wait until you see the war in Iran. It will be a massive, global war." Among the possible outcomes Falk listed in his Nation piece: "a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy"; a deep, worldwide recession as Iran - the world's 4th largest oil producer - embargoes its oil; the strengthening of "Islamist tendencies throughout the region" and the hand of hardliners in Iran. And Clemons writes of the probable military response by Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both; "the reaction of the other world major powers [that] would be at best reserved"; and the destabilizing impact and popular unrest that would occur in Muslim countries with significant Shia minorities. Finally, there is the question of how effective any attack would be given that the Iranians have dispersed nuclear sites that are underground.

So what should be done exactly? Not what the Bush Administration --along with its compliant European allies like France and Germany --is trying to do. On the eve of the UN General Assembly meetings in New York, The Washington Post reports that a new "coalition of the willing" will work to impose broader military and economic sanctions against Iran-- in what a Western diplomat dubbed a kind of "sanctions of the willing."

Instead, Cirincione argues, "We should learn from the North Korean and Libyan experience. Both were determined foes of the United States, both had weapons programs the U.S. wanted to stop, both were subjected to sanctions and U.S. pressure. But it was only when the United States began direct talks with these nations that we were able to develop a diplomatic path to end these programs. The Libya model is the polar opposite of the Iraq model: instead of invading a nation to change a regime, you negotiate with a nation to change the regime's behavior. North Korea is a more difficult case than Libya, but the same approach shows signs of working there as well. Iran is the most difficult case of all, but direct dialogue with the pragmatists could very well produce a compromise that satisfies the security concerns of both Iran and the United States."

Additionally, as the IAEA marks its 50th Anniversary this year, and ElBaradei once again attempts to instill a measure of sanity into a dangerous game of brinksmanship, we should focus on ways to support the IAEA mission and make it as effective as possible. John Holum, who served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said recently, "We rely on the IAEA to safeguard nuclearmaterial in facilities all over the world. Yet the IAEA has never spent in excess of 120 million U.S. dollars in any year to administer its worldwide nuclear materials inspection regime. At less than what the U.S. spends per day in Iraq, the safety of the world is dramatically compromised."

Ultimately, the international community needs to work in conjunction with the IAEA to secure real nonproliferation of weapons - and as Falk pointed out in his Nation article, that means multilateral nuclear disarmament: "… It is disastrous folly to suppose that some will agree to live forever beneath the nuclear Sword of Damocles without trying to obtain such weapons themselves." In the meantime, while the Bush administration plays cowboy at the expense of global security - and influential newspapers like the Washington Post hurl hit jobs at el-Baradei, Congress should follow the wise advice of The Nation's defense correspondent, Michael Klare, who wrote in the magazine that legislation should be passed banning the use of federal funds for any attacks on Iran or Syria without prior authorization.

Most importantly, we need to confront the insanity of a military confrontation with Iran.

[imnho]

I thik that the adminastration is outof touch and may give the next president a third war to satisfy the macho urges that rule them.

Most of them arranged to get out of the fighting during Vietnam and have no concept of how bad things can get.

We should not bomb Iran unless we are prepared to fight a war that will make the Iraq war seem tame. This would involed a world war. That will nor bother the neocons since they have not intention of going in harms way. That should bother the everyday person who will be in harms way.

[noloyalisti]

I am spreading the idea that we should all be prepared to start a general strike when they start bombing Iran which appears to be inevitable. Just say no to wars of offense.

I am talking to everyone I can locally about walking our of work and meeting on a local corner to decide what to do and where to go. A co-worker just said that he does not want to pay any more taxes he is so sick of this ***.

[knyghtwolf]

leftyintexas, insofar as how many people actually HATE the bush(wacker), like the new McDonald''s signs, it is in the BILLIONS. After this idiot and his dwarves are dragged out of office, the TAXPAYERS will be paying way beyond what should be deemed as compensation for its protection from anyone wanting a claim to fame and fortune for bagging any of the bush regime, including the head/headjob itself, the chimp in charge, the shrub, the "great" decider, or whatever you want to call the WORST president in the history of the United States, Whom ever goes in after it, has a heck of a mess to clean up and will need an extra term just to even get started. Bush should be the poster boy for why abortion is legal.

[realpatriot1]

JohnBoy5599,

The hyperbole of warning that if we don''t bomb Iran we will all be worshipping Allah soon makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

First of all, let me assure you that under no circumstances imaginable will our children be worshipping Allah unless they voluntarily choose
to do so. That''s still rather unlikely, given the overwhelming Christian culture of America.

Secondly, bombing Iran will lead to more terrorism, not less. It will inflame what''s left of a moderating force in the populations of the Islamic world. That is precisely who we need to be reaching out to in order to actually weaken the hand of Jihad and strengthen the n hand of peace.

Iran''s nuclear program is a major concern. We need to understand that, just as we are threatened by the prospect of Iran having the bomb, the Islamic world has been living for years under the threat of Israel possessing the bomb. There has been serious talk that Israel might use tactical nuclear weapons to attack Iran. That only spurs on those who promote the Islamic bomb, as does war talk in the U.S.

It would be a catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions if a nuclear exchange took place in the Middle East. Not only the Middle East would be effected, the prevailing winds would transport the radioactive cloud to China, UIndia, and southeast Asia. Russia would become involved on the side of Iran and Israel would be attacked with nukes.

It would be best for cool heads to prevail and for the genie to stay in the bottle.

[ladyjaneg]

I say that to say that starting a war on Iran wouldn''t be like Iraq. Iran is much more than donkeys and sand (not to say that''s all Iraq is--please nobody take offense)I really hope that we can actually avoid war, beucase I could be totally wrong....but I really don''t see it ending well at all. I think it would just be a disaster, to be quite frank.

[ladyjaneg]

JohnBoy, I see your point. But I''d also like to point out that Iran has pretty powerful allies, shoudl we get involved. I guess we don''t know FOR SURE if Iran has nukes, but (I think...please correct me-gently- if I''m wrong) Russia does. And Russia and Iran are allies. So is Syria. While I do think we shoudl put an end to radical Islam (everyone note, I said RADICAL ISLAM, not ISLAM in general) I just think we should look before we leap.

[johnboy5599]

People, you all need to wake up. Iran is a radical islamist and dangerious country. We MUST bomb them in order to preserve peace and strengthen security here in America. If we don''t bomb them now, we may all be worshiping Allah soon, or your children will. I support a full scale bambing, including nukes. Iran is stronger than Iraq, shock and awh in Iran will make what we did in Iraq look like a few fire crackers. Once we nuke key weapons and military sites, transforming their country into a democracy should be easy. Many of you think a war is wrong, but did you all forget 9/11? Those muslums are dangerious and untrustworthy. I say we just drop the bombs now.

[b-malt]

No one can be so foolish as to try and solve another problem in the Middle East with military force.
President Bush is a member of the Skull and Bones just as his father is.
These men and the other members of the Skull and Bones are not foolish men, so they must have some agenda.
I believe that they consider themselves architects of the one world government and that the only way to achieve a OWG would be to set off complete chaos around the globe.
President Bush senior has talked about a new world order (OWG), does anyone remember that?

[middleman8]

The US military has got to stand up for what is right and tell bush to go to hell(where he came from) that they will kill no more innocent people for him and cheney.
P. S. Japan was begging to surrender three months before pres. Truman dropped a-bomb. I remember.

[ammianus]

The Sorrows of Young Dumus, Art. XLVIII:
After the defeat of Gaugamela (A.J. 6728, 16-23 Artemisios), and the ensuing fiscal collapse, the final break with Dumus was consummated in mid-Hyperberetaios. The Military Convention issued a manifesto reaffirming that the people had embarked on the revolution in pursuit of %u201Cdeep social needs%u201D rather than a merely political formula; and that in epochs %u201Cof profound social and political turmoil, when institutions totter and come crashing down, sovereignty %u2026 resides in the armed people.%u201D The manifesto enunciated a %u201Cminimum program%u201D that included the following: an armistice with the Allied powers and withdrawal of the Hegemon armies from the East, restitution of foreclosed lands to the dispossessed; imposition of essential regulation of the financial sector of the economy; %u201Cthe destruction of gated, plutocratic enclaves, so that large landed properties are redistributed among the people, who bring forth the produce of the soil through their own exertion%u201D; nationalization of property belonging to enemies of the revolution; and freedom of association, and the right of workers to go on strike.
Further, the Convention reversed recent acts of the ministers of Dumus who serviced the crushing national debt by auctioning immense properties to foreign governments. These holdings were confiscated %u201Cso that the people may live in a land they own and be rid of foreign overlords.%u201D

[ammianus]

The Sorrows of Young Dumus, Art. XLI:
The complacent enjoyment of power can never be the final destination of a totalitarian regime. The totalitarian leader had made dramatic promises: to unify and purify his community; to save it from the flabbiness and confusion of democratic politics and the contamination of alien peoples and cultures; to rescue the community from decadence and decline.
In order to fulfill these promises, totalitarian regimes must present the impression of driving momentum and cannot survive without a headlong, intoxicating rush forward. Without a mounting spiral of ever more daring challenges, totalitarian regimes devolve into decaying authoritarianisms. With it, they drive inexorably toward a final paroxysm of self-destruction.
Thus it was that when the populace contemplated each disaster of misrule, Dumus would distract them with some fresh and ever more hideous outrage. The grinding failure of the occupation of Mesopotamia led inevitably to the Persian war and abrogation of the Constitution (A.J. 6722, 14 Gorpiaios); thence to the annihilation of Khourosan (A.J. 6723, Dystros); then to the massacre of Sind (A.J. 6723, Dios) and the attack upon Irkutsk (A.J. 6725, 25 Apellaios); until, finally, the titanic struggle of Gaugamela (A.J. 6728, 16-23 Artemisios) terminated, almost at one blow, the usurpations of Dumus and the tragic career of the Hegemon.

[clestes-2009]

to cont...

Bush should already be tried as a war criminal!! He likes to strut around the stage, claiming to be a war president. God, the man was never even a real soldier!!

If he goes through with this, he will be tried as a war criminal!

[clestes-2009]

I simply cannot believe how stupid this admin is!!!

Here we are, MIRED in Iraq, army, marines and national guard stretched to the breaking point, on the brink of economic meltdown, at least 80% of Americans against another war in the middle east and THEY WANT TO INVADE IRAN????

What the fck is WRONG with these people???

Why can''t they just let the IAEA do their job?? They told Bush in 2003 Saddam had no nuclear bombs, Bush invaded anyway. Who was right, the IAEA.

After the complete debacle of Iraq, after being WRONG you have to wonder what Bush''s agenda is.

You know, I think Cheney WANTS another war. He WANTS the middle east to be set a flame. He WANTS the excuse to drop a nuclear bomb. It makes no difference wherethere the are any bombs or not. He thinks that if he drops a nuclear bomb, he will somehow eliminate Iran and Syria, and Israel will come out on top and the US will finally control the oil fields.

Remember he is from big oil, that is where he made his money. Big oil wants those oil fields so they can stop the alternate energy movement and keep the money coming to big oil. He is trying to persuade Bush that his legacy will somehow be improved. Bush is stupid and arrogant enough to think that too.

It is a plan BEYOND stupid. It is MORALLY WRONG to kill millions of people, including Israelites, for the purpose of fcking MONEY!!!!

[draftreid]

lastdance,

Prescott Bush was Prescott Bush...ho hum.

You want to talk Nazis - then talk about Kapo Soros, the Jewish collaborator of the Hungarian Nazis - it''s documented. Talk about Pelosi, Reid, Dean and all of those who tolerate the anti-Semitism of Rep. Jim Moran D-Virginia who once again is blaming Jews for the Iraq War.

And the ''ho Pelosi doesn''t say nary a word.

Talk about the Anti-Semitism of those who post daily on the Kos, or those who applauded and put Ahmedinejedad over the current President of the United States, because YOU hypocrites, bozos, - and yes, NAZIS hate him more than a really evil greasemonkey.

If we have to bomb Iran because they are close to developing a nuke to kill Jews, or even Americans - you''ll be screaming like hyenas that the Jews caused the war - them and Bush.

But you''ll never go after REAL NAZIS - because you Lefties love them.

[lastdance2]

Look ! ! - Understand ! ! - The Real begining of the Problem -

The Real begining of the Problem is - The people who - Sold - Them the
Technology - Then Demonstrated - and - Instructed them on - How to use it ! !
Understand ! ! - The real source of the problem - The Real begining of the Problem

Former : Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - Was involved in selling a Nuclear Plant to : North Korea Along with the technology to refine : Uranium and produce Plutonium. The main ingredients of a : Nuclear Weapon

VP Cheney : Former Chairman of Halliburton : Halliburton was Charged with shipping Six Pulse Neutron Generators to Libya.

Westinghouse agreeed to hand over - The Technology That will allow Chinese buyers - To build their : "Own Versions" of - Nuclear Plants - In the future.

The Uncle of Pres. Bush - Prescott Bush
Chairman, U.S.-China Chamber of Commerce

Prescott Bush connections to an American firm, Asset Management
The company was the Only U.S. firm able to - Skirt - U.S. sanctions
and import (smuggle) US Communications (Spy ?) Satellites into China.

China allied to : North Korea allied to Syria allied to Iran allied to Libya
Each Country - Hostile to the United States Now ! ! - All exchanging
Nuclear Weapon Technology

Outstanding act of Patriotism to - China - North Korea - Syria - Iran and Libya
Demonstrated By - The Republican (Nazi) Party - Criminal Corporate (Nazi) America

There was a time - Treason - Was a Criminal Act

Lastdance

[mcvet]

All we can do is hope and pray that somehow we can get through the next year without Bush/Cheney starting yet another war. They are obviously out of control and have NO concern for the people of this nation what so ever. They are on a "mission from God" and as with the enemy, no life of group of lives matter in such a mission. Sieg Heil Bush

[gkc99]

"What is really needed right now - as was the case in 2003 - is for ElBaradei and the IAEA to be given a fair hearing and support."


As if we can trust this Muslim to interfere with the development of another Muslim bomb. What did he do to stop any other country, such as say Pakistan, from developing nukes? Iran is playing him like a fiddle, delay and deny, until they acquire the nuclear weapons they are attempting to develop.

An Ah-mad''s denials? Pretty much on a par with his statements about their being no homosexuals in Iran.

[lastdance2]

Look ! ! - Understand ! ! - The real Source of the Problem - The Real begining of the Problem

Former : Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - Was involved in selling a Nuclear Plant to : North Korea Along with the technology to refine : Uranium and produce Plutonium. The main ingredients of a : Nuclear Weapon

VP Cheney : Former Chairman of Halliburton : Halliburton was Charged with
shipping Six Pulse Neutron Generators to Libya.

Westinghouse agreeed to hand over - "The Technology" That will allow Chinese buyers -
To build their : "Own Versions" of - Nuclear Plants - In the future.

The Uncle of Pres. Bush - Prescott Bush
Chairman, U.S.-China Chamber of Commerce

Prescott Bush connections to an American firm, Asset Management
The company was the Only U.S. firm able to - Skirt - U.S. sanctions
and import (smuggle) US Communications (Spy ?) Satellites into China.

China allied to : North Korea allied to Syria allied to Iran allied to Libya
Each Country - Hostile to the United States Now ! ! - All exchanging
Nuclear Weapon Technology

The Real begining of the Problem is - The people who - Sold - Them the
Technology - Then Demonstrated - and - Instructed them on - How to use it ! !
Understand ! ! - The real source of the problem - The Real begining of the Problem

Outstanding act of Patriotism to - China - North Korea - Syria - Iran and Libya
Demonstrated By - The Republican (Nazi) Party - Criminal Corporate (Nazi) America

There was a time - Treason - Was a Criminal Act

[rational_1]

Well those ignorant peasants in Iran are probably living in about the 8th century right now (their pseudo nuclear programme notwithstanding). We could drop a couple of bombs on them, knock ''em back to the 5th century, wait a few years until they rebuild to the 8th century again, drop a couple more nukes and thus keep them in the harmless rebuilding process indefinitely. Wonder what President Imonajihad would say about that.

[tomtomasters]

Although I stand first to be against nuclear technology and believe the US should dismantle it''s programs first, the argument can be made that Iran and Saudi Arabia have the right to protect their nations from Superpowers vying for their oil resources. Oil is on the decline in the world. If America provided more money to create alternative energies and made it clear to the Middle East Oil producers they have no need for their Oil, then I think those countries would not be searching for means and ways to protect themselves. After the Iraq invasion, it made it perfectly clear these countries need the bomb. Bush has been a major blunderer to world security...but I suppose it reflects the same criminal intent they have already committed in the past with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Most of the world looks at the USA as an aggressor nation, that has been the only country to use the Atomic bomb, while targeting innocent people in Japan "instead" of the military.