Posted by D. Cupples | Military strikes against Iran have been on President Bush's mind since at least 2002, when he declared Iran part of the "Axis of Evil." Today, ABC News reported:
"Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.
"The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.
"The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."
"What urgent need? The Pentagon referred questions on this to Central Command."
This year, alone, various events and officials' statements have hammered home the point that Iran will likely end up a target....
In June, for example, U.S. officials refused to release five Iranian officials captured in a raid in January. Jokes aside, how would we perceive another country's kidnapping Condoleezza Rice? Probably as grounds for war.
That was just days after Sen. Joe Lieberman (the "Independent" from Conn.) went on NBC's Face the Nation and advocated bombing Iran.
In August, the Bush Administration told the media that it might designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" group. Two months later, today's Washington Post reported:
"The Bush administration plans to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, according to senior administration officials."
Are there solid grounds for strikes against Iran? Lacking security clearance, I don't actually know -- and neither do most other Earth dwellers.
What we do know is that the Bush Administration's credibility problem cannot be easily overcome. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, for example, the Administration persuaded the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was tied to 9/11.
We still haven't found those WMDs the President had been talking about during the Iraq-war lead up -- despite our nation's impressive satellite equipment and 4+ years of presence in Iraq. In September 2003, six months after we invaded Iraq, President Bush told the world there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (BBC). In September, Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that he didn't think Iraq had been linked to 9/11 (BN-Politics).
Whatever the truth is, our nation can no longer occupy a vacuum while considering attacking another nation. Just last week, Russian leader Vladamir Putin publicly opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iran (New York Times). At an international summit in August, leaders of China and Russia issued a veiled warning that the U.S. should stay out of Central Asian affairs (i.e., shouldn't bomb Iran).
China's population is 4 to 6 times larger than ours, an that nation has resources. If China and other nations join forces against the U.S., we could face grave consequences that make the Iraq quagmire seem like a a Paris shopping spree.
To see discussion of articles at Memeorandum, follow these links: ABC News, New York Times, Washington Post,
Comments