Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran
Are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against Iran at a moment's notice?
The answer is contained in presidential directive NSPD 35, "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization," issued May 2004, which is classified. Nevertheless, we can infer the answer from the fact that every other element needed for a nuclear strike on Iran is now "deployed" and ready, namely:
The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley, Stephen Cambone, Robert Joseph, William Schneider Jr., J.D. Crouch II, Linton Brooks, and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration.
A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries that precisely fit the Iran profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations."
The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq, and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17), which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons.
150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts, and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them.
Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks and their apparent willingness to support any course of action that could potentially protect them from real or imagined terrorist threats.
The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities around the world [1], [2], including acts against America [1], [2], and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda.
Senate Joint Resolution 23, "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Resolution [.pdf], which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror."
The Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales.
The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes it "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology, which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse.
The Israel factor [1], [2] .
I have discussed many of these elements in previous columns. Here I will focus on the people, the doctrine, and the weapons. .....
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263
The answer is contained in presidential directive NSPD 35, "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization," issued May 2004, which is classified. Nevertheless, we can infer the answer from the fact that every other element needed for a nuclear strike on Iran is now "deployed" and ready, namely:
The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley, Stephen Cambone, Robert Joseph, William Schneider Jr., J.D. Crouch II, Linton Brooks, and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration.
A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries that precisely fit the Iran profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations."
The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq, and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17), which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons.
150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts, and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them.
Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks and their apparent willingness to support any course of action that could potentially protect them from real or imagined terrorist threats.
The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities around the world [1], [2], including acts against America [1], [2], and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda.
Senate Joint Resolution 23, "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Resolution [.pdf], which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror."
The Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales.
The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes it "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology, which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse.
The Israel factor [1], [2] .
I have discussed many of these elements in previous columns. Here I will focus on the people, the doctrine, and the weapons. .....
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263
posted by hal9k | 22:18
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home