[Marxism] Ruimsfeld going soft on Iran? Reporter claims Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld now divided

Fred Feldman ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Sat Sep 16 22:17:29 MDT 2006


Maybe the Secretary of Defense could use a pep talk from the US-SWP's
Jack Barnes about now.
Fred Feldman
 
Walker's World 
 
NO IRAN STRIKE -- RUMSFELD By Martin Walker 
 
UPI September 14, 2006 
 
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060914-0
84551-1264r 
 
WASHINGTON -- The iron triangle may be bending.  According to military
and former high-level administration sources, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld is raising serious objections to what President George W. Bush
calls "the military option" that could prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons. 
 
This heralds the first important policy breech [sic] between the
triumvirate of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld, sometimes
known in Washington as "the iron triangle," in almost six years of the
Bush administration. 
 
The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington shorthand for
Rumsfeld and his immediate staff, is not so much saying 'No' directly,
the sources told United Press International, as listing a series of
important objections to the military option. 
 
By contrast, added the sources who asked to remain anonymous, Cheney has
stepped up his advocacy of the military option by saying that the recent
hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have made it more
feasible, by weakening the prospect that Iran could retaliate by
pressing Hezbollah to unleash a wave of rocket attacks against Israel. 
 
The OSD objections to a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites are
not new, and have been cited by other critics in the past, but the fact
that they are being taken seriously by the Pentagon adds a new
complication to the Bush administration's decision-making at the highest
levels. 
 
The first objection is that the OSD is not convinced that U.S. and
friendly intelligence have yet assembled a complete target list of
Iran's clandestine and underground nuclear research and development
facilities. A series of air and cruise missile strikes against known
sites would amount to an act of war, a very high-risk undertaking if
Iran retains undamaged sites that can maintain a basic nuclear
credibility. 
 
The second objection is that Iranian retaliation against the 130,000
U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq, and other U.S. bases in Central Asia
and the Middle East, could both complicate military operations and the
political stabilization program in Iraq, and inflict serious casualties
on U.S. personnel.  There are some different perspectives on the
military option among the different services.  A military strike would
be largely in the hands of the Air Force and of the U.S. Navy, who
deploy the warplanes and cruise missiles that give the military options
its credibility.  But the Army, with its troops on the ground, would
likely suffer the bulk of any retaliation. 
 
The third objection being cited by the OSD is a somber warning from the
State Department that a military strike before all diplomatic options
have been explored would have serious political consequences among the
NATO and other U.S. allies.  The likelihood of civilian casualties in a
U.S. air strike, when so many of Iran's underground facilities are
dangerously close to schools, hospitals and other civilian centers,
would intensify the likelihood of international condemnation of a
military strike. 
 
The fourth objection is that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is
not imminent.  The OSD reports that most U.S. and friendly intelligence
assessments suggest that Iran is three to five years away from being
able to produce a workable nuclear device.  And by that time, the Bush
administration would be out of office and the decision left to a new
president. 
 
The fifth objection is that the very prospect of the military option is
itself a powerful diplomatic tool, a constant threat as the diplomacy
proceeds without any immediate need to use it.  The diplomacy, however,
appears to be moving at a snail's pace, with Iran invoking yet another
delay in the latest round of discussions with the European Union's top
diplomat, Javier Solana, a former secretary-general of NATO. 
 
But Cheney's office, along with supporters of the military option
outside the administration, claim that there is strong time pressure for
a firm decision to be taken, since Iran is expected to deploy a new
Russian-built anti-aircraft and anti-missile system next year. 
 
"We've signed a contract for supplying (Iran) with air-defense missile
systems for defense purposes," Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of Russia's
Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, announced in
February this year. 
 
The deal, worth a total of $700 million, provides Tehran with 29 Tor-M1
and two smaller Pechora-2A systems.  The Tor-M1 is a mobile
ground-to-air missile system designed to shoot down targets at medium,
low, and very low altitudes and can engage two targets simultaneously at
a maximum range of seven miles. 
 
Israeli intelligence sources have claimed that this deal is just the tip
of the iceberg, and that the Tor-M1 systems are designed to protect the
still-secret stage of the contract that would provide Iran with Russia's
state-of-the-art S300 defense system, widely claimed to be superior to
the U.S.-built Patriot anti-missile system.  The Russian business daily
*Kommersant*, however, has reported that the talks on the sale of the
S300 system have been suspended. 
 
The use of the military option against Iran's nuclear sites is also
under consideration in Israel.  Last year, in an interview with MSNBC,
Cheney said:  "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians
had significant nuclear capability -- given the fact that Iran has a
stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel -- the
Israelis might well decide to act first." 
 
Efraim Inbar, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and
a respected Israeli analyst, argued last week that "while less suited to
do the job than the United States, the Israeli military is capable of
reaching the appropriate targets in Iran.  With more to lose than the
United States if Iran becomes nuclear, Israel has more incentive to
strike." 
 
Even the new Tor-M1 anti-aircraft defenses, which are expected to be
deployed and operational next year, would hugely complicate any
prospective Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites.  It would require
two strike missions rather than just a single wave, the first to
suppress the anti-aircraft defenses and the second to attack the missile
sites.  With the width of Jordan and Iraq separating Israel's air bases
from Iran, even a single strike mission would be complex and difficult
procedure, requiring in-flight refueling and making recovery of any
downed pilots a remote prospect. 
 
The U.S. military capability is far greater than that of Israel, and its
bases in the Gulf and at sea and its "stealth" strike aircraft make the
U.S. military option far more credible.  But the objections being listed
by Rumsfeld from the Pentagon are powerful, even as influential voices
outside the administration and in the conservative media press the case
for action. 
 
"Iran has pursued ruthless oppression at home, terrorism abroad and
weapons proliferation, largely with impunity.  Offers of dialogue are a
waste of time," argues Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise
Institute, who was last year being widely touted for a senior Middle
East policy-making post in the Bush administration. "We have talked
about talking for long enough, there must be other options." 
 
"It is not wise to force America into a choice between doing nothing and
doing everything.  But it may come to that," Pletka concluded.
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

 
<http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=8945
6&partner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here! 




More information about the Marxism mailing list