The Nuclear Option

Now that I've finished blathering on about comments and put that situation to rest, I want to talk about this Sy Hersh article from The New Yorker suggesting that we want to hit Iran, and we're not ruling out tactical nuclear weapons as a means to that end. I've no doubt as to its authenticity; the Pentagon is in the business of making war plans, and when you're dealing with the massive underground tunnels under 65 feet of rock like you have in Iran, nukes are pretty much the only way to ensure you've hit your target. What Hersh made clear in the article and on CNN's Late Edition today is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented this as an option, but when they tried to walk it back, senior officials in the White House refused to take it off the table.

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

If anything, this article makes it clear to a large section of American liberals that the government is dead serious about doing something in Iran. I think too many people had an "Attack Iran? You and what Army?" attitude, which simply doesn't take into account the players in this debate. This government has shown that saber-rattling in order to reach a diplomatic solution is not how they operate; as one military planner says in the article, “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” Saying that assumes that Ahmadinejad wields more than just figurehead power in the country. The mullahs have always been in charge, and they've even sought to rein him in. It's clear that focusing on Ahmadinejad serves a public relations strategy of defining the enemy in the vein of Saddam Hussein. This guy is not a dictator, and while he's a bit mad, he doesn't control the country.

Using tactical nuclear weapons as a means to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes my head spin. To think that you'd be able to get away with blowing up a nuclear bomb in the Middle East without starting World War III is terribly naive. But then again, these are the same people who said the Iraq war would last 6 weeks without making a plan for the postwar environment.

To divorce this decision from the political realities in the US would be irresponsible. It's how they've always worked. The President is unpopular, the generic Congressional ballot shows double-digit leads for the Democrats, and events on the ground in Iraq aren't going to magically transform and vindicate the policy overnight. I truly believe that the Bush Administration thinks they can rally the public to their cause by taking strong action against Iran. There's an element of the Republican base that considers Bush "isn't willing to do what it takes" to fight the war on terror (see this bit of fantasy if you don't believe me). This would be a stinging rebuke to that, and allow Rove's minions to frame the midterm elections as a referendum on fighting the war on terror. "Do you want to win or lose" would be the message, and I don't know if it wouldn't be successful.

My personal view is that Iran is years and years away from a nuclear capability, that the whole world community is on our side in the main on this, and further diplomacy to simultaneously isolate Iran and come up with a workable solution would undoubtedly bear fruit. We're willing to negotiate with Iran to help bring stability to Iraq. We can certainly find common ground on this. I support efforts to bolster the reformists in Iran (something we should have been doing during the entire Khatami Presidency, when reformists actually had a foothold in the government). It's completely nuts (as Jack Straw said this morning) to consider tactical nuclear weapons in a bubble, without considering the repercussions.

Finally, this is funny:

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

Ten bucks that the Democrat's name rhymes with Schmeiberman.