Bombing Iran - motive, opportunity and means

February 24, 2007 11:27 AM

Bombing Iran - motive, opportunity, means (and thuggish accomplice).
posted by RichLyon (54 comments total)

The motive:

ABC News:: "just look at what Iran represents in terms of their physical location. They occupy one whole side of the Persian Gulf, clearly have the capacity to influence the world's supply of oil, about 20 percent of the daily production comes out through the Straits of Hormuz. ... A nuclear-armed Iran is not a very pleasant prospect for anybody to think about it. It clearly could do significant damage. And so I think we need to continue to do everything we can to make certain they don' achieve that objective."

--Dick Cheney, U.S. Vice-President

The opportunity:

Blowup? America's Hidden War With Iran-Newsweek: "some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. ... They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for"

--Hillary Mann, former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

The means:

'Theater Iran Near Term' (TIRANNT)-Information Clearing House: Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, 'Theater Iran Near Term' has identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a 'Shock and Awe' Blitzkrieg, which is now in its final planning stages ... The use of tactical nuclear weapons is contemplated under CONPLAN 8022 alongside conventional weapons, as part of the Bush administration's preemptive war doctrine. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued ... Three strike groups including the Stennis, the Eisenhower and the Nimitz are being deployed in the Persian Gulf. According to Gulf News,"The Stennis strike group ... is now strengthening a high level of US Navy presence in the Gulf. The Stennis and the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, already in the region, will soon be joined by the carrier Nimitz. (Gulf News, 21 Feb 2007). According to British military sources, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice.

The thuggish accomplice:

A giant and scary leap--TimesOnline: "Israel is preparing for an even more audacious attack on Iran's nuclear sites at Natanz, near Tehran, Isfahan, and Arak. Israeli pilots, flying F-15I and F-16I fighters, have been practising the long-haul flights and pinpoint manoeuvres that would enable such a mission to succeed. Crucially, the preparations envisage the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the first time such weapons would have been used in warfare since 1945."

Israel wants to strike Iran: Report-Zee News:"Negotiations were now underway between the [US and Israel] for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an 8216;air corridor8217; in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons, a senior Israeli defence official was quoted as saying by the newspaper ... Israel's military establishment is moving on to a war footing, with preparations now well under way for the jewish state to launch air strikes against Tehran"

posted by RichLyon at 11:36 AM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

ok. Here goes. first comment
1. Israel will not attack without firm approval by US
2. Most countries plan for this or that possible attack on this or that potential enemy.
3. An attack upon Iran would soldify the Iranian public--now not exactly happy with its rulers--against America and is proxy attacker, Israel.
4. The Dems now trying to contain Bush war initiatives but if he gave Israel the go ahead he would circumvent the Democrats.
5. The American public would give lots of approval for an attack so long as it was bombing only and not the use of American forces.
6. No leader in any country will ever declare flat out that we will not consider this or that option.
7. Yes we have motive, opportunity, means. But then it is also a matter of the wisdom of such a move. But our foreign policy of late seems not wise.
posted by Postroad at 11:40 AM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Stop it!!! All this war stuff is driving Brittany insane!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:41 AM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

People who call Israel "thuggish" really want to shove all Jews into ovens, right?

/sarcasm
posted by davy at 11:55 AM on February 24, 2007

I am anti-war with Iran. I was and remain anti-war with Iraq. I regard Israel as an oppressive occupying force in Gaza and the West Bank. I am inclined to support a two-state solution although I have heard interesting proposals from some Palestinian thinkers for a one-state solution.

However, the word thuggish used in this post is utterly jarring and inappropriate.
posted by imperium at 11:57 AM on February 24, 2007

It won't be as easy their last attack on a nuclear facility.

F-15 HUD (Heads Up Display) view of the June 8, 1981 Israeli air strike against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor called Operation Opera.

BTW . . . with all of the war-drum beating and Bush / Cheney both on trips outside of the county, I'd be more worried about another staged attack on U.S. interests. I wonder where those Dolphin submarines are?
posted by augustweed at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2007

here is a good bbc documentary on the subject of israel and its intentions towards iran.
posted by localhuman at 12:02 PM on February 24, 2007 [3 favorites]

Remember everyone, when a state calls for the destruction of Israel and openly sponsors anti-Semitic propaganda, it is not thuggish... but when someone wants to deny nuclear weapons to such a state, watch out!

I can't imagine how you can waste your time on this post, RichLyon, when so many protests are in need of a naked idiot with a poster of Jews wearing swastikas.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:03 PM on February 24, 2007

Motive, opportunity and means, maybe. But If I Did It, why am I spending all my free time on the golf course looking for the real bombers?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:06 PM on February 24, 2007

So, let's see...

Calling Iran thuggish, Fine.
Calling the USA thuggish, Sure.
Calling Nothh Korea thuggish, of course.
Calling Christians thuggush, well, yes.
Calling Islamists thuggish, yep.

Calling Israel thuggish, Out Of Line!

Got it.
posted by Balisong at 12:09 PM on February 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

The only thing holding Bush back is 8$/gallon gasoline, because that's the one thing that will get him impeached.
posted by bardic at 12:14 PM on February 24, 2007

It was Colonel Mossad in the War Room with the lead bomber wing.
posted by Abiezer at 12:33 PM on February 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

3. An attack upon Iran would soldify the Iranian public--now not exactly happy with its rulers [...]

I'm not sure I remember reading this anywhere. What is the support for that bit?

Not a snark, just interested.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 12:44 PM on February 24, 2007

Interesting documentary localhuman. From when is it?
posted by jouke at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2007

Calling Israel thuggish, Out Of Line!

It certainly draws out the trolls.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2007

from the first link:

Cheney: We've gone more than five years without another 9/11. That's not an accident, but it's because we've done some very controversial things, like sacrificing 1000 virgins under Cheyenne Mountain in a secret blood-orgy and listening to everything every one is saying all the time.

I filled in the blanks there for you.
posted by exlotuseater at 12:47 PM on February 24, 2007

Thanks for the link localhuman
posted by Abiezer at 12:58 PM on February 24, 2007

Thanks, blazecock. I think you've inverted the word troll. I am, if anything, the trollee, not the troller.

FWIW, Balisong, I think there are many more accurate (and critical) terms to use for that list. I would object to any of them having thuggish ascribed to them. Now, if you said a Kali-worshipping assassin was thuggish, then we'd be shaking hands up to the elbow.
posted by imperium at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2007

i think that documentary was from fall 2006, but i'm not sure. what i am sure of is that by the summer of 2007, israel will be bombing iranian facilities whether or not the US is helping or not.
posted by localhuman at 1:10 PM on February 24, 2007

I had said in my comment that there was (or had been) opposition to the regime in Iran..this has lessened somewhat because the people now rally around Us against Them--we want to have nukes too~!
but there is still opposition:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/10/10/the_revolution_next_time?pg=fullhttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Opposition.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Opposition.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Opposition.php
posted by Postroad at 1:24 PM on February 24, 2007

Iran says US in no position to attack but suggests talks between the two nations
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/24/D8NG7HA00.html
posted by Postroad at 1:48 PM on February 24, 2007

Israel isn't thuggish in my opinion, rather Israel is a hand maiden of the US Empire and its useful attack dog. In a way, having Israel attack Iran for US policy objectives is a great way for the US to pretend to its public that it wasn't responsible. And if Iran counter-attacks, the US will gladly step in to the larger battle and explain that "it's was forced to defend Israel from rampant Iranian aggression."
posted by bhouston at 1:50 PM on February 24, 2007

"[T]he word thuggish used in this post is utterly jarring and inappropriate."

You'd prefer "bullying" and "murderous", eh?
posted by davy at 1:55 PM on February 24, 2007

Thuggish? The president of Iran says his country will eliminate the state of Israel. Iran trains and equips Hezbollah, stations them inside Lebanon, runs that country and fights a war with Israel while sending missles into that country. Iran sends lots of money and help to Hamas now. Ok. Israel is thuggish and Iranian goverment is modest and gentlemanly.
posted by Postroad at 2:08 PM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I just saw the documentary and they did mention summer 2007 as the earliest 'point of no return'. So that means Israel will make a move pretty soon.
Did not know much about that. Tx.
posted by jouke at 2:09 PM on February 24, 2007

Can't they both be thugs, Postroad?
posted by PsychoKick at 2:54 PM on February 24, 2007

The president of Iran says his country will eliminate the state of Israel.

Cite? Botched translations from MEMRI don't count.
posted by ryoshu at 3:15 PM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

How about the WaPo.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel."
posted by stirfry at 4:10 PM on February 24, 2007

Why Iran is next.
posted by wfc123 at 4:27 PM on February 24, 2007

For contrast, North Korea has an even more developed nuclear weapons program and is guilty of proliferating missile technology to Pakistan, Indian and Iran, yet the U.S. does not seem interested in invading them, at least so far. What is the difference? North Korea is not an oil producer, whereas, Iran not only is a major oil producer but intends to setup a non-dollar denominated oil bourse as well. That is why Iran is the next U.S. target.
posted by wfc123 at 4:31 PM on February 24, 2007

How about the WaPo.

You mean this?

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

That sounds more like "regime change." Ahmadinejad is a nutter that is becoming rightfully marginalized in his nation, but he is quite careful in his rhetoric.
posted by ryoshu at 4:55 PM on February 24, 2007

I'd like to hear from anyone on metafilter who can speak and read farsi for a translation. From what I understand, the text was mistranslated intentionally for propaganda perposes.

What Ahmadinejad (our politicians and talking heads still can't pronounce his name correctly much less make accurate translations) actually said was that Israel will pass from the pages of history, a passive statement and one founded on Gandhi's observation that tyrants, no matter how strong they may appear, always fall.

The claim that Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be "wiped off the map" is false. In point of fact, Ahmadinejad has never actually said that, despite the use of the quote marks by the Telegraph.

Is wishing someone wasn't born the same as intent to murder?
posted by augustweed at 5:02 PM on February 24, 2007

Did you read the whole thing?

there is also this:

"Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."
posted by stirfry at 5:04 PM on February 24, 2007

Well you could say that North America would be better off if George Bush never existed. But that doesnt mean that you think killing him would be good or actually accomplish anything right now.
posted by Iax at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2007

i might think that...
posted by localhuman at 5:24 PM on February 24, 2007

hi NSA! it's me, localhuman. yeah, you know my ip address
posted by localhuman at 5:24 PM on February 24, 2007

But I didn't say that, and you speak English. See what I mean about mistranslation?
posted by augustweed at 5:25 PM on February 24, 2007

But I didn't say that, and you speak English. See what I mean about mistranslation?
Was meant for Iax
posted by augustweed at 5:26 PM on February 24, 2007

"Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

Yes. Here's a good account of Ahmadinejad's "calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." A short summary: he never said that.
posted by ryoshu at 5:28 PM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Here's the original version for those who can understand farsi.
posted by augustweed at 5:35 PM on February 24, 2007

Looking into it a bit more, I retract my previous take on the issue and now agree with ryoshu.

"Comments attributed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, saying he wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map" were taken out of context, according to his foreign minister."


Mottaki also acknowledged the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, despite Ahmadinejad saying in December that it was a myth.
posted by stirfry at 5:59 PM on February 24, 2007

Advocates of an air assault tend to take comfort in the proposition that the destruction of a major portion of Iran's nuclear establishment would set back acquisition of weapons by many years. When asked what to do when Iran picks up the pieces and starts over again, they echo the argument of General Curtis LeMay, who advocated the preventive destruction of China's industry in the early 1960s. When Ambassador Averell Harriman asked LeMay what the United States should do when China rebuilt its capability, he said, "Hit 'em again."

Political, diplomatic and military obstacles to taking action in Iran have been well recognized. Strategists who think of themselves as stalwart, steely-eyed and far-seeing regard these obstacles as challenges to be simply overcome or disregarded in order to do what is necessary, even if it is less than a perfect solution. But if bombing known nuclear sites were to mean that Tehran could only produce a dozen weapons in 15 years rather than, say, two dozen in ten years, would the value of the delay outweigh the high costs? The costs would not be just political and diplomatic, but strategic as well. Provoking further alienation of non-Western governments and Islamic populations around the world would undermine the global War on Terror. Inflaming Iranian nationalism would turn a populace that is currently divided in its attitudes toward the West into a united front against the United States. Rage within Tehran's government would probably trigger retaliation via more state-sponsored terrorist actions by Hizballah or other Iranian agents.

The military option that is possible would be ineffective, while the one that would be effective is not possible. The military action that would work--an invasion of Iran--cannot be done, since America's volunteer army has already reached the breaking point in handling missions less challenging than subduing Iran would be. The only means of definitively preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be occupying the country forever. This would ensure that the regime we install remains compliant with American judgments about what the country does or does not need for its own security in a dangerous neighborhood. One might note in passing that there is no reason to assume that the reformed Iraqi government the United States is struggling to stand up will not revive a nuclear weapons program if U.S. forces were ever to allow it genuine independence.

The Osirak Fallacy
posted by y2karl at 6:02 PM on February 24, 2007

Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech, New York Times, October 30, 2005:

Our dear Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

(Translation by Nazila Fathi, of the New York Times' Tehran bureau.)

Juan Cole translated the phrase as "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." This started a tiff with Christopher Hitchens. MEMRI's translation is "'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'"
posted by kirkaracha at 6:40 PM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

from this interview in TIME:

Khatami, 62, served eight years as president before leaving office in 2005, and he remains close to Iran's powerful Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini.

TIME: Do you accept a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel? And does the government of Iran accept that?

Khatami: My opposition to Israel is moral. The peaceful solution to the problem of Palestine is to recognize Palestinian rights. This is the only way there could be sustained peace in the region.

TIME: And a Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel?

Khatami: Yes.


Would that we in the U.S. were judged by everything our cartoonish presidents have said. In particular, doesn't the US talk about wiping out "regimes" right and left?

But hey, let's not forget our favorite autocratic monarchy in the region, no anti-semitism in that government, no sir.

I have no doubt that the Iranians kill and eat puppies and kittens for pleasure but the idea that anyone in the US government cares about how nasty a "regime" in the Middle East is, is completely laughable. There's no polite way of saying that...
posted by geos at 8:14 PM on February 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

Just for the record, I don't think the fundy Shiite government of Iran is any better, except that Iran is not currently occupying somebody else's land and "apartheiding" against them.

As for social conditions? I'd rather live in Israel, as long as I was officially Jewish; being officially Jewish in Iran would suck too. How glad I am to be an atheist, i.e. an agent of Satan everywhere I go!

So I have no need to choose between Israel and Iran: I say the U.S. should ignore them both. Stop giving Isarel money and weapons, stop threatening war with Iran. For that matter I favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan too, along with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Germany, France, North America....

Any country whose rulers cannot get along without the help of the Halliburton Party is by definition illegitimate, which probably goes for any government that can only stay in power by opposing the U.S. So: regime change for everybody!
posted by davy at 11:23 PM on February 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

And before I pass the hell out from booze and exhaustion, let me say that I'd be against the U.S. bombing or invading Israel if it looked like that might happen. Anti-war means just that.

G'night.
posted by davy at 11:40 PM on February 24, 2007

There were two horrors that emerged during the Second World War: the crimes against the Jews, and the use of nuclear weapons.

The post is partly about the planned first use, by Jews, of nuclear weapons since the Second World War.

It was not the primary intent of my post to debate the squandering in recent times of the right to special treatment the Jews once deserved as a consequence of crimes against them. "Jarring" is, however, an adequate word for the situation we face.
posted by RichLyon at 9:07 AM on February 25, 2007

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
posted by homunculus at 9:28 AM on February 25, 2007

U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran: report:

Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
....
The article, citing unnamed current and former U.S. officials, also said the Bush administration received intelligence from Israel that Iran had developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads that could reach Europe. It added the validity of that intelligence was still being debated.

February 2, 2007: "The President has made clear, the Secretary of State has made clear, I've made clear...we are not planning for a war with Iran," [Gates] told reporters.

February 15, 2007: "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran."

Hmm...why does that sound familiar?

May 24, 2002: "The United States has no plans to invade Iraq or any other country, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday."

May 31, 2002: "But as the President has said repeatedly, and in recent days again, he has no war plan on his desk and his advisors have not provided one. All speculation to the contrary is nothing but speculation to the contrary."

June 4, 2002: "But as we've said repeatedly, I have no plans on my desk at this point in time."

June 5, 2002: "And there's no plans on the President's desk to take any type of military action, as the question might suggest."

U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unreliable

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack:

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

posted by kirkaracha at 9:42 AM on February 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

Iran rocket claim raises tension: "Iranian media say the country has successfully launched its first rocket capable of reaching space."

3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran: "Three Arab states [Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates] in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:14 AM on February 25, 2007

Bush's Future Iran War Speech
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on February 26, 2007

Iran's "Space Missile?" Yawn, It's a SCUD
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on February 26, 2007

In other Axis of Evil news: The North Korea intel botch is worse than you think.
posted by homunculus at 10:21 PM on March 1, 2007

Iran's rich architecture and rare treasures threatened by possible US strikes
posted by homunculus at 11:14 PM on March 4, 2007