Media Pundits Ask: Should The U.S. Bomb Iran Now?

Printable View

10-24-2007, 07:16 PM
Gold9472

Media Pundits Ask: Should The U.S. Bomb Iran Now?

Media pundits ask: Should the US bomb Iran now?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Media_...Iran_1023.html

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday October 23, 2007

In the wake of Vice President Cheney's saber-rattling statements over the weekend warning Iran of "serious consequences" if it attempts to develop nuclear weapons, the cable news networks have focused heavily on the prospect of imminent war against Iran.

Fox News spoke with military analysts Lt. Col. Bill Cowan and Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney. Both men are members of the Iran Policy Committee, which was founded in 2005 to press for more aggressive action against Iran.

Cowan told Fox that he believes we are heading for war with Iran, though he suggested it might be more effective to support the "positive, forward-leaning political resistance against the regime" -- an apparent reference to the terrorist MEK group of which the Iran Policy Committee has been a supporter.

McInerney, however, said, "We, in fact, should. There are enough dots out there that we have more than enough rationale to do it." He claimed that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has killed more than 300 Americans in the last 8 months -- a figure which, if correct, would amount to roughly half of all US deaths in Iraq during that period.

"I don't think we're going to have a lot of options," Cowan concluded.

At MSNBC, Chris Matthews invited a debate on the question, "Should the United States Bomb Iran Now?" between Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and Jim Walsh of MIT's Security Studies Program.

Muravchik -- who has been a leading exponent of overthrowing the Iranian government since 1993, when he co-founded the Foundation for Democracy in Iran -- described Iran as "the biggest international sponsor of terrorism." He asserted that Iran is "on a mission that starts with hegemony over the Middle East ... It sees itself, in a sense, at war with us. ... If it gets a nuclear weapon, it will use that as a kind of umbrella with which to push forth its quest for dominance."

"The prestige factor of owning that weapon even if they never use it is horrible," summarized Matthews.

Jim Walsh, however, warned of the immediate negative consequences of bombing Iran, saying, "First and foremost, it would be extremely costly. ... I mean, if you like the war in Iraq, you would love the war in Iran." He suggested that an escalation of attacks on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and a dramatic increase in the price of oil were only two of the likely outcomes.

Walsh also debunked Muravchik's suggestion that Iran might build a nuclear weapon and then hand it over to terrorists, saying that no government has ever done that. "They can't trust these crazy guys," he emphasized.

Matthews then hit Muravchik with a series of questions, including whether the threat of terrorists obtaining loose nukes from the former Soviet republics is not far greater than any hypothetical actions by Iran, how long it might take Iran to build not merely a nuclear weapons but a suitcase-sized device that could be used by terrorists, and whether any of Muravchik's associates at AEI actually believe Iran is "on the verge of getting a weapon that could be transported by a terrorist group."

"You're saying bomb now," Matthews said, demanding to know what is so urgent that it can't wait while diplomatic and economic efforts are given time to work. He also asked Muravchik whether his real deadline is to see Iran bombed before Bush leaves office.

"We've waited," Muravchik insisted, claiming he never said we should bomb Iran "this minute" and that even "a year from now might be soon enough" but "there's no alternative way to stop them."

"If we're concerned about terrorism, bombing Iran is absolutely the worst thing you could do," Walsh concluded. "It is giving al Qaeda this giant gift." He also pointed out that even an active Iranian weapons program could be reversed, saying that North Korea is now dismantling its own nuclear program and also that "Almadinejad is not calling the shots" in Iran.

The following video is from MSNBC's Hardball and Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on October 22 and 23, 2007.

Video At Source
10-24-2007, 07:51 PM
simuvac

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3771522&page=1

Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs

White House Bomber Request Leaves Some Wondering if U.S. Is Preparing Action in Iran

By JONATHAN KARL

Oct. 24, 2007 —

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.

ABC News called CENTCOM to ask what the "urgent operational need" is. CENTCOM spokesman Maj. Todd White said he would look into it, but, so far, no answer.

There doesn't appear to be any potential targets for a bomb like that in Iraq. It could potentially be used on Taliban or al Qaeda hideouts in the caves along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but there would be no need to use a stealth bomber there.

So where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb like this? Defense analysts say the most likely target for this bomb would be Iran's flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried.

"You'd use it on Natanz," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And you'd use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly."

"It's kind of strange," Pike said. "It sends a signal that you are preparing to bomb Iran, and if you were actually going to bomb Iran I wouldn't think you would want to announce it like that."

The MOP is a massive bomb -- 20 feet long and encased in 3.5 inch thick high-performance steel. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding.

The bomb was developed by Northrop Grumman and Boeing for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

In an interview earlier this year with Air Force Times, Bob Hastie, the manager of the MOP program explained its purpose: "We have a mission to defeat ... hard and deeply buried targets where our adversary would have the support structure for WMD-type systems."

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
10-24-2007, 07:58 PM
Gold9472

Ugh.
10-24-2007, 07:58 PM
Gold9472

Is Iran the equivalent of Cambodia?
10-24-2007, 09:32 PM
AuGmENTor

Quote:

It sees itself, in a sense, at war with us. ... If it gets a nuclear weapon, it will use that as a kind of umbrella with which to push forth its quest for dominance."

As opposed to US dominance...
10-24-2007, 10:14 PM
simuvac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold9472

Is Iran the equivalent of Cambodia?

Good question. I don't think so. I don't think the expansion of the Vietnam war was planned in the same way the expansion of the Gulf War has been planned. We know the neocons have a plan of "5 countries in 7 years," or whatever they can manage in the next year (maybe Israel bombing Syria was part of a plan to share the duties?).

Iran is definitely the equivalent of Cambodia in the sense that it is a war crime.
10-24-2007, 10:22 PM
dMole

You mean they haven't started already?

Quote:

Originally Posted by simuvac

Iran is definitely the equivalent of Cambodia in the sense that it is a war crime.

Hi Sim,

At least Iran's not covered in DU 238 yet, like Iraq and Afghanistan (anybody seen Beyond Treason yet)? I'm sure it's in the works.

I can't remember if I posted this here yet, but it looks like Emperor 'Du[m]b authorized "covert ops" for Iran back in May 2007.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...uthorizes.html
10-24-2007, 10:25 PM
AuGmENTor

Quote:

Originally Posted by dMole

Hi Sim,

At least Iran's not covered in DU 238 yet, like Iraq and Afghanistan (anybody seen Beyond Treason yet)? I'm sure it's in the works.

I can't remember if I posted this here yet, but it looks like Emperor 'Du[m]b authorized "covert ops" for Iran back in May 2007.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...uthorizes.html

Yeah, I saw it, and it's funny how with all of the other shit going on you never pay much attn to that anymore. DU is a very real concern on a global scale.