Home > Pentagon stopped Bush, Cheney nuking Iran

Pentagon stopped Bush, Cheney nuking Iran

by Open-Publishing - Friday 11 August 2006
10 comments

Nuclear Wars and conflicts International Governments

Pentagon stopped Bush, Cheney nuking Iran
Sherwood Ross
Middle East Times
August 10, 2006

WASHINGTON — US President George W. Bush and his vice president abandoned a plan to include "the possible use of a nuclear device" to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz over Pentagon opposition, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has said.

"Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. But Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Chairman Marine General Peter Pace "stood up to them," he said. "Then the word came back: ’Okay, the nuclear option is politically unacceptable."

Hersh termed this a "major victory" for the military, but one that has left "bad feelings" between it and the civilian hierarchy in Washington.

In an article published in The New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported senior commanders inside the Pentagon "increasingly challenged the president’s plans" on grounds the nuclear attack likely would not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program and "could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences" for the United States.

The possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Natanz’s buried laboratories was held to be "politically untenable" as the device could "vent fatal radiation for miles [kilometers]," Hersh wrote. Natanz is about 300 kilometers (roughly 200 miles) south of Tehran.

Instead, the US Air Force has proposed dropping large "bunker-buster" conventional bombs in quick succession on Natanz to "generate sufficient concussive force to accomplish what a tactical nuclear warhead would achieve, but without provoking an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki," Hersh wrote.

This approach, however, might fail because the enormous heat generated by the first bomb would liquefy the soil, one Pentagon consultant said. "It will be like bombing water, with its currents and eddies. The bombs would likely be diverted."

Besides, as Hersh noted, over the past two years "the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas in anticipation of a bombing raid."

Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor who has taught at the air force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, is quoted as saying Natanz is "a very large underground area, and even if the roof came down we won’t be able to get a good estimate of the bomb damage without people on the ground."

"We don’t even know where it goes underground, and we won’t have much confidence in assessing what we’ve actually done. Absent capturing an Iranian nuclear scientist and documents, it’s impossible to set back the program for sure," Pape said.

One Pentagon adviser told Hersh America’s allies fear a US assault against Iran would place them in jeopardy. The Iranians, he said, "have agents all over the Gulf, and the ability to strike at will."

Last May, the emir of Qatar learned during a visit to Iran that his country, the site of the US Central Command’s regional headquarters, "would be its first target in the event of an American attack," Hersh wrote. Qatar, a leading gas exporter, operates offshore oil platforms which would be extremely vulnerable in the event of war.

Some Pentagon officers oppose an attack against Iran as it could heighten the risks to US forces in Iraq. "What if 100,000 Iranian volunteers came across the border?" retired Army Major General William Nash asked. And Navy officers worry about "suicide water bombers" attacking US aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

Nash, now a senior fellow at the council on Foreign Relations, said US bombing of Iran "would be seen not only as an attack on Shiites but as an attack on all Muslims. Throughout the Middle East, it would likely be seen as another example of American imperialism. It would probably cause the war to spread."

The US military has also dissented from a bombing campaign against Iran in the absence of specific intelligence evidence "of clandestine activities or hidden facilities," the magazine article said. One high-ranking general told Hersh, "We built this big monster (WMD) with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq."

Sherwood Ross is an American columnist and magazine writer. Contact him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=200608

Forum posts

  • Actually, the Bush admistration nor the sundry policy makers have given up on nuclear weapon usage against Iran.

    Perhaps you have read and or heard such a thing to be true. But it is a falsehood.

    All kinds of data points to it being falsehood. Believing a lying president and his people shows how weak the public thinking really is.

    Billions of new dollars are being assigned to upgrade nuclear devices. At least two of the nation’s leading labratories are competing on designing and manufracture processing. There are hundreds of smaller companies/consultants who are in support materiel in these efforts.

    The country is being spooked. The American public is always spooked, was spooked and will always be spooked. They are weak thinkers. They are filled with fright and hate for/of Islam, Muslims, Arabs.

    The administration lies, has lied and will continue to lie.

    There is money in new weapons nuclear or otherwise.

    Destruction of Islamic heritage and legacy is the plan, has been the plan since the First Crusade and will be for the indefinate future.

    All of the above and more are all datapoints against what the openning paragraph states.

    I could go on... But I should assume that you got my point.

    • The truth of the matter is this in a nutshell. Iran is developing secretly a nuclear arsenal and they will eventually use it. The only way to stop them from using it against Isreal or the United States is to take out all of their nuclear capabilities. If this means nuking them back to the stone age then we must do that now rather than waiting for them to hold the world hostage with the threat of nuclear blackmail. Anytime you have religous fanatics running a country you are bound to have problems and the leadership of Iran is probably the most fanatical and untrustworthy nation in the world today. I feel very sorry for the Iranian people who will die and the survivors of the coming catashrophy in Iran. But, they are the people who allow such a crazy, powerhungry,fanatical government to exist. God have mercy and compassion on their average citizens souls who will suffer so much all because of their radical current government.

    • Do you have 100% absolute proof that Iran is making nukes? Do you have pictures? Do you know Mahmoud personally to be able to say this as fact? Can you name every country in the world that has nukes and be 100% certain that they have them?

      Wonderwall

    • Helloooo...

      "Anytime you have religous fanatics running a country you are bound to have problems"

      See the irony in that statement? Isn’t that what we have here now with shrub? He’s playing "my God is better than your God" too. We’re going to force "democracy" on them whether they want it or not. The religious right is supporting the Neocons because they believe that’s what they’re doing. Don’t they see they’re being USED - the only GOD that the neocons bow to is the one of MONEY and POWER. Neocons don’t give a crap about the people in Iraq, that’s why they’re using depleted uranium weapons. Kill every living thing now, and generations to come. Then repeat in Iran, Syria, etc. It’s so that they can take the OIL stupid. This so they can have all other nations by the short hairs.

      You want the rapture? You want to meet your maker? Then the religious WRONG can do us all a favor and drink the poisoned kool-aid and get it over with. Armageddon may work for you, but it isn’t in MY best interest.

      We must wake up and start to act. The only sane choice is to elect secular politicians who support a government that respects the rights of ALL religions and the sovereignty of ALL nations. When you don’t, you get what we have now. HELL ON EARTH. God gave you a brain, take the veil off, turn off FOX and read what is available to you outside of the crap they feed you. Only the TRUTH will set us all FREE.

    • Wow, Someone on this web site got it totally right. I couldn’t have done better. Thank you for setting it straight. If we don’t do something now (soon), we will eventually become the victim. DO you think for one second that this is easy for Bush? We are living in very difficult times. I am glad I am not the president and the one that has to contemplate these issues. Thank you Preident Bush for the fine service(s) you are doing for our country.

    • 64.77: Spoken like a true moron, deep in denial, 64.77. How deep does your small head go up that long ass of yours, 64.77?

    • You’re so petrified with fear, you little wuss, that you’ve got to push out your chest and scream for the death of everyone in Iran. You’re trying to sound tough, but you’re just a scared little coward So cowardly. If you weren’t such a little wuss you might be able to think soberly about this and come to a few conclusions:

       Iran, for all it’s problems, is a democratically elected government. Now, we may not like the kind of democracy that is, we may have issue with their macho "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth" talk and how they treat women, but all these guys talk big, including the moron in our head office. In reality, no one would be stupid enough to set off a nuclear device as it would result in everyone sending theirs out too - it’s a no win situation and even a "maniac" knows that.

       Secondly, they wouldn’t "give" these devices to random terrorists as they have no control over these terrorists. Could Hezbollah get them? Possible. But they would they bomb israel with it? Probably not. Why? Because the fallout would poison their countries as well.

       Thirdly, whatever the threat, bullying without equal parts diplomacy - or for that matter, just talks - will result in nothing. These people want to talk, but they want something in return, primarily their own security and some other things we may not agree with but we at least have to start a dialogue.

      Now, there’s gray areas in all of this, but whatever the threat, "nuking them back to the stone age" is just a childish, unrealistic response. Grow up and face your fear, idiot.

      I’m all for completely destroying anyone who threatens us or attacks us, but I’m also realistic and not lead by fear. Fear only produces irrational thinking, which is the crux of your post.

  • Well let’s hope this is true for a change. I am very concerned for the well being of anyone from any country being nuked. If Bush was a man, he could go and discuss this like Mahmoud has asked, but Bush is afraid that Mahmoud is going to be more intelligent (which he is anyway) and Bush just can’t handle this. I pray every day that this will not happen and will continue to.

    KH

  • I suppose a mystic would know something else.

    Sage

  • What we should be doing is destabilizing the Iranian regime. We need to do this as soon as possible. We should start attacking their military infrastructure from the air and continue for the next several years. We can tell the Iranians that we will stop when we determine that they have abandoned terrorism, abandoned their support of terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and their nuclear program. If nothing else, this will set their nuclear program back a while.

    In addition, this is good training for our pilots, and we are already in the neighborhood.

    If Iran has/gets nukes, we will be in serious trouble. One nuke detonated in the US will cause an enormous amount of damage to our economy and people.

    It’s all about money, and the economic damage due to $100 a barrel oil is substantially less than that of a nuclear device detonated here.