Holsinger: The United States Will Attack Iran
by Guest Author on March 17, 2006 06:12 AM

Tom Holsinger explains why he thinks his future scenario re: Iran (W. leads an invasion before they get nukes) is more likely than mine (no invasion, they get nukes, 10-100 million or more dead within 20 years). Or does he?

America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, recently made a statement on the ABC News Nightline television program which irrevocably commits the Bush administration to use any necessary means, up to and including invasion, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Reuters story on this states:

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States. "Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat," Bolton told ABC News' Nightline program. "I think it's just facing reality. It's not a happy reality, but it's reality and if you don't deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant."

This statement is incendiary and, from a experienced diplomat like Bolton, could only have been with full authorization from the highest levels of the Bush administration. It is an admission which the Bush administration cannot politically afford to disown once Iran announces it has nuclear weapons or a test of a nuclear device. The Republican Party base would rise up in a fury which would utterly destroy the Bush administration's effectiveness if it fails to take military action in such an event and, as importantly, the public careers of every Bush administration official in national security positions would be over. In addition to the consequences of doing nothing for the United States and the world.

It is unlikely that Iran's mullah regime will announce termination of its nuclear weapons program, and still less likely that the Bush administration would believe it absent really intrusive inspections which the mullahs cannot permit for their own domestic political reasons. This is especially true as I believe that it is highly likely that Iran already has nuclear weapons purchased from North Korea, or made with purchased North Korean plutonium. See this Times of London story, and two past Winds of Change articles from Trent and myself - Count Down to Iran's Nuclear Test, and The Case for Invading Iran.

The Washington Post has reported that the Bush administration's new policy towards Iran now has regime change as its objective:

"The internal administration debate that raged in the first term between those who advocated more engagement with Iran and those who preferred more confrontation appears in the second term to be largely settled in favor of the latter. Although administration officials do not use the term "regime change" in public, that in effect is the goal they outline as they aim to build resistance to the theocracy. ..."The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement."

StrategyPage contends that it is unlikely Iran's mullah regime can be changed from within, as the mullahs have repeatedly shown that they will massacre peaceful opposition. While armed domestic opposition could probably overthrow the regime given significant American support from an adjacent sanctuary (Iraq), that would take more than a year to implement. This is not enough time given the advanced state of Iran's nuclear program and its ability to purchase North Korean plutonium or ready-to-use nuclear weapons. Furthermore the mullahs won't just sit there while we foster armed rebellion in Iran - they'll come after us, and they likely have nuclear weapons to do it with.

Likewise they won't just sit there if we bomb their nuclear program, and that will give them a greater incentive to use any nuclear weapons they already have.

The safest way to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, given the at least significant possibility they already have nuclear weapons, is to eliminate their regime as fast as possible, and that means invasion combined with "counter-force" and "decapitation" bombing.

But that invasion is the safest way to achieve this goal does not mean that the Bush administration will do it that way - there are vast institutional and political obstacles to the staggeringly large ground force commitment such would require, notably a massive call-up of almost all ground force reserves for two or more years even if an invasion commences on a "come as you are" surprise attack from a standing start (which would be wise against an enemy who has nuclear weapons).

We'll probably stumble into an invasion after lesser means of eliminating Iran's mullah regime fail, which means giving them a fair chance of using nuclear weapons on our forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia's oil ports, and Israel.

But we'll get there. Ambassador Bolton's statement has committed us to that.


« ok, I'm done now

Direct Link | Comments (73) | TrackBacks (0) | Printer-Friendly | E-mail This!

This is not a isolated statment.  John Bolton is one of the few Bush Administration people who will give internet bloggers the time of day.  Two weeks ago he gave a interview to the webblog Atlas Shrugs and below are the exerpts related to Iran:

JB: When I was in earlier administrations I was in assistant secretary level positions working hard on my issues and I didn't pay as much attention to the broader....... Atlas: the big picture? [Atlas interrupting? WTF?] JB: So when I see it now, it's probably more discouraging how much there is to do. Atlas: Discouraging how? Discouraging how much there is to do? Or discouraging as in --is it do-able? JB: Oh its do-able, under the right circumstances. I'm not so naive that I would be doing it if I didn't think there was a chance which makes it in some senses more frustrating. You can see sometimes how close you can get and yet you can't finish a particular thing. Like Iran, I've been working on this for three and a half years Atlas: And you'll be working on it for three and half more. JOB: I hope not,  I hope not because now that it's in the Security Council, now is the time to say this is their chance that either they give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons or we go to what the President said, we do something else. Atlas: We do something else? That's a little vague, don't you think? Deliberately vague? JB: Yeah, sure absolutely. The President said I never take options off the table. And you've got to be that way. Look this has happened to me enough times before .... if I said, well --  I'll give you an example......after the invasion of Iraq, after Saddam was overthrown I said something in a BBC interview like I hope the governments of Syria and Iran take notice of what's just happened and I got into enormous trouble for that because it sounded like I was threatening the invasion of Iran and Syria. Atlas: yeah but you get in enormous trouble for waking up in the morning JB:  Well that's true too. to be continued

and here:

Back to Iran............. Atlas: I think we've moved too slowly and they've gotten too far. It is frightening to me  because Israel is such a small country, it would just take one,  to get one off JB: yeah Atlas: One JB: Well, the President has used this phrase enough times, I don't know if he ever used it in a speech, but he talks about his concern about  a Nuclear Holocaust -- that's his phrase. Atlas: He's right JB: He's got Iran specifically in mind. That's why I am confident over time that whatever happens at the State Department, the President knows what he needs to do. Atlas: You're clear on that.

The clowns at the UN didnt listen when GWB told them to get theit shit together on Iraq, either. So what else is new? The fact that it`s coming from Bolton should drive it home.

Quoted: The clowns at the UN didnt listen when GWB told them to get theit shit together on Iraq, either. So what else is new? The fact that it`s coming from Bolton should drive it home.

Its not just the UN.  Its EVERYONE that is ignoring what Bolton is saying.  The Democrats, the MSM are not coming after him.  Its it because to do so would reveal that they HAVE no position?  I am not sure but it is very odd.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyoooot. You mean they already HAVE the Fookin thing?

Quoted: Quoted: The clowns at the UN didnt listen when GWB told them to get theit shit together on Iraq, either. So what else is new? The fact that it`s coming from Bolton should drive it home. Its not just the UN.  Its EVERYONE that is ignoring what Bolton is saying.  The Democrats, the MSM are not coming after him.  Its it because to do so would reveal that they HAVE no position?  I am not sure but it is very odd.

The problem is if they acknoledge his remarks as being important, then the Iran situation is starting to shape up like iraq 2003. They don`t want to go there, because as you say they have no position other than Bush is evil. To admit Iran is a "gathering" danger is to respond to the situation in Bush`s framework and that decisive action is again required.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The clowns at the UN didnt listen when GWB told them to get theit shit together on Iraq, either. So what else is new? The fact that it`s coming from Bolton should drive it home. Its not just the UN.  Its EVERYONE that is ignoring what Bolton is saying.  The Democrats, the MSM are not coming after him.  Its it because to do so would reveal that they HAVE no position?  I am not sure but it is very odd. The problem is if they acknoledge his remarks as being important, then the Iran situation is starting to shape up like iraq 2003. They don`t want to go there, because as you say they have no position other than Bush is evil. To admit Iran is a "gathering" danger is to respond to the situation in Bush`s framework and that decisive action is again required.

That is unusually diciplined of them...