from a Blog:http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/01/nuke-iran-with-bunker-busters-bombs-to.htm
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Nuke Iran With Bunker Busters Bombs To Save Israel
By Timothy D. NaegeleDemocrat activist Bob Beckel—sitting in for Alan Colmes on Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” —
said on January 26th that he believes the United States should use bunker buster bombs against Iran to prevent it from developing and using weapons of mass destruction, and that “we owe it to Israel.” When a guest on the show suggested that Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities are built so deep that a “nuclear bunker buster” might have to be used, Beckel stated emphatically that he would support the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in “an air campaign where you use your bunker buster bombs or whatever the best you've got available to do that.”
While Beckel may be the first Democrat to espouse such views publicly, they are by no means new—or any less frightening. It has been speculated for years that a major consideration in our latest war against Iraq involved pressure from, as well as the perceived need to defend Israel. Also, Beckel’s comments may simply reflect the fact that Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities are hardened against long-rumored Israeli attacks, and the Israelis would have to fly through American-controlled Iraqi airspace—and probably refuel in Iraq—to reach their Iranian targets.
All of this is very disturbing because the last thing that the Bush Administration needs is to expand the Iraq war into neighboring Iran, or to be perceived as having given Israel a “green light” to attack Iran, by aiding and abetting such actions. According to most reports, the situation today is vastly different from 1981, when Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered a raid by F-15s and F-16s that destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor south of Baghdad.
If Iran’s sites are hardened already, it would take the most sophisticated bunker-buster bombs to penetrate and eliminate them including, but not limited to, our own nuclear weaponry. Also, the Iranians are denying that they have any interest in building nuclear weapons, just as Saddam Hussein did. The White House acted on WMD intelligence estimates that were consistent with what members of Congress and our allies knew; and both Democrats and Republicans supported the need for action in Iraq. Yet, when WMDs were not found, Democrats and the Liberal media commenced a unified chorus, blaming George W. Bush and accusing him of lying, and even going so far as raising the specter of impeachment.
The Bush White House does not consist of fools, and they are not about to be led down the primrose path again—or climb out on an “Iranian limb”—just to be “ambushed” politically like they have been concerning Iraq. Having defeated Saddam’s regime so brilliantly, the Administration learned quickly that some proponents of such actions became its harshest and most strident critics; and the likelihood of that happening again should convince the White House to be very hesitant about doing anything militarily against Iran.
The U.S. has its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have sapped George W. Bush’s support among the American people, in no small measure because of opposition to the war from Democrats and the Liberal media. Also, their latest drumbeat is that our Army is stretched to the “breaking point,” which certainly argues against taking any military action against Iran.
As Michael Slackman observed in the New York Times: “[The] Iranians know that American forces, now stretched thin, are unlikely to invade Iran. And if the United States or Europe were to try a small-scale, targeted attack, the proximity of American forces makes them potential targets for retaliation. Iranians also know the fighting in Iraq has helped raise oil prices, and any attempt to impose sanctions could push prices higher.” Slackman added: “With the Americans stuck fighting a protracted, murky war in Iraq, the Iranians felt they were in a position to defy the West even over the nuclear issue.”
If the Israelis feel compelled to address Iran’s nuclear capabilities because of their own national security interests, then Israel might choose to do it alone, without involving the United States, just as it did in 1981. Because Iran has threatened to respond with missiles if attacked, and because Iran's improved version of the Shahab-3 missiles can strike more than 1,300 miles from their launch sites—putting Israel and Coalition forces in Iraq within easy range—the U.S. and its allies must restrain Israel, while insuring that it is armed with anti-missile systems to protect itself.
Richard Nixon drew on Samuel P. Huntington’s warning against a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West, when he wrote: “The United States must not let the ‘clash of civilizations’ become the dominant characteristic of the post-Cold War era. As Huntington observed, the real danger is not that this clash is inevitable but that by our inaction we will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we continue to ignore conflicts in which Muslim nations are victims, we will invite a clash between the Western and Muslim worlds.” That is prescient advice, worth heeding today.
According to a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, 57 percent of Americans favor taking military action against Iran if its Islamic government continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons—despite Americans’ disillusionment with the war in Iraq. Even among Democrats, forty-nine percent support such action. Also, 53 percent of Americans who were polled said they believe the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war. If the United States were to contemplate waging war against Iran, serious consideration must be given to reinstituting the draft, so that our all-volunteer military forces (and their families) are not victims of a Middle Eastern quagmire, or worse.
We are in Iraq now; Saddam Hussein is in jail and in the midst of a trial, and may be condemned to death in the not too distant future for his heinous crimes; Iraqis have conducted democratic elections; and there are reasons to be optimistic about that country’s future. Free elections have taken place in Afghanistan too; its women are enjoying unprecedented freedoms; and that country is moving forward democratically. Why the White House or the Congress would want to do anything with respect to Iran, other than seek stringent international sanctions—which China and Russia may attempt to dilute—is mind-boggling.
It calls to mind Joel Chandler Harris’ famous story, “Br'er Rabbit and the Tar-Baby,” in which Br'er Fox tricks Br'er Rabbit by creating a baby made out of tar. Br'er Rabbit sees the Tar-Baby, which does not say a word; and annoyed, he hits the Tar-Baby on the jaw, but his fist gets stuck and he can’t pull it loose because of the tar. Undaunted, he repeats the process and his other hand sticks fast too. Then he kicks the Tar-Baby with both of his feet, and they too stick fast; and finally he becomes totally stuck in the tar.
Having liberated Afghanistan and Iraq successfully, our continuing commitments to both countries take precedence over any actions against Iran. Moreover, by attacking Iran and failing to heed Nixon’s warnings, the United States might find itself knee-deep in Middle Eastern “tar.” The clash of civilizations would be in full tilt, and query whether America in prepared to embark on such a world war—in addition to the War on Terror—and whether it is in our long-term best interests to do so? Also, query whether such a war is winnable or necessary?
As President Bush has stated, we are not at war with Islam, but rather with extremists within the Muslim world who have subverted one of the world’s great religions. Also, the U.S. is not at war in the Middle East to protect Israel against the Palestinians or more than a billion followers of Islam throughout the world. Israel is an ally, to be sure; however, few if any Americans believed that by invading Iraq, we would be fighting to make the Middle East safe for Israel, which is not worth the loss of American lives or the “quagmire” that has resulted in Iraq.
To expand American military activities beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to neighboring Iran seems foolhardy at best, and likely to trigger the clash of civilizations that both Nixon and Huntington warned about. We are not at war with Islam—in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, in the Palestinian territories, or in the War on Terror—nor should we ever be drawn into such a war. It is certain that if the White House acted militarily with respect to Iran, the same Liberals and Liberal-dominated media that are undermining this country’s noble efforts in Iraq would turn against President Bush and his Iranian policies in short order, and raise the issue of impeachment.
Mr. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to former Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com). Also, he served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent, and has written extensively over the years, with two articles appearing in the Banking Law Journal and the American Banker in 2005.