The White House Nuclear Iran Option

According to Seymour Hersh, members is the Joint Chiefs are about to resign because the White House wants to keep the option of using nulclear bunker-busters to take out Iran's underground nuclear weapons facilities.

HERSH: When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs and the planners then wanted to walk back that option [to use nuclear weapons], what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House — people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the Vice President’s office — said “No, let’s keep it in the plan. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.” They refuse to take it out. What I’m writing here is that if this isn’t removed — and I say this very seriously, I’ve been around this town for 40 years — some senior officers are prepared to resign. They’re that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. Again, let me make the point, you’re giving a range of options early in the planning, to be sure of getting rid of it, you give that option. …

This isn't the first time the administration played with the idea of using nukes on a foreign country. The New York Times reported that the administration wanted to use nuclear bunker-busters on Iraq's nonexsistant underground weapons facilities. Conventional weapons. would work better to take out a bunker. The radioactivity would spread and kill civilians. I doubt the administration has considered the risk to U.S. troops in neighbouring Iraq. Or the reaction of Muslims in the Middle East. As intense as the reaction was to the Muhammad cartoons, the violence against U.S. military personal in places such as Qatar will make the Alamo look like a minor skirmish.

The National Security Strategy (pdf file) states, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense." The document doesn't explain how the White House plans to fight a three-front war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. There are valid arguments to take out Iran's weapons-making abililities. The country does support terrorism and is hostile to the United States. There is no reason to believe that the Bush administration is capable of performing this task. The Bush neocons resemble the gang that couldn't shoot staight more than fierce warriors. There is a reason the circus doesn't use clowns as lion-tamers.

The question is where are the Democrats? Now that Hersh spilled the beans, they can't duck the issue. Democrats have to formulate a national security policy. They can't ride Bush's coattails on Iran. Unless they want to make America less safer and have approval ratings below 40 percent.