Is Bush Planning to Nuke Iran?

President Bush would not rule out the use of nuclear force against Iran, according to this article:

President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic’s atomic ambitions.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day.

Bush said in Washington he would discuss Iran’s nuclear activities with China’s President Hu Jintao this week and avoided ruling out nuclear retaliation if diplomatic efforts fail.

Asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush replied: “All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we’re working hard to do so.”

If there was ever a time for antiwar protests, songs and calls for impeachment, this is clearly it.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. I really don’t think even Bush is stupid or stubborn enough to start another war, especially a nuclear one.

    I sure hope SOMEBODY does something about Iran, though(hopefully the Iranian people, by rebelling). They need nuclear energy for what… to decrease their dependency on their own massive stockpiles of oil?

  2. Talk about misdirected. And as if this is about personal morality or the like. The commentator above should be thinking more about the people in the U.S. getting rid of this present imperialist system — which is the font of all these crises.

  3. The US government’s failure to talk to the new Palestinian government (elected democratically by the way) is an ostrich policy, sending the Palestinians further into the arms of Iran.
    Bombing Iran, most (especially with nukes) would be a disaster, enraging 1.5 billion Muslims. People need to contact their senators, congressmen, anyone they know in government to say NO BOMBING OF IRAN. Bombing Iran would endanger our troops in Iraq and would not help bring stability or democracy to either Iraq or Iran.
    This “Trigger Happy” administration needs to be controlled.
    Kay Penstone

  4. It has been puzzling that the administration insists on staying in Iraq with no apparent objective. But staying in Iraq makes sense if Bush is planning to attack Iran, and there are indications that Bush had planned to attack Iran even prior to the time he publicly included Iran in the “Axis of Evil”. Iraq could be a staging area for bombing attacks on Iran. It has been less than subtle that Bush has been leading up to such an attack. The propaganda machine has been beating war drums for months with its unproven innuendoes about Iran’s nuclear motives.

  5. “We don’t trust Iran to have a nuclear energy program, because they’ll use it to make weapons.”

    The US and the EU keep saying that — and it may be true — but that doesn’t change the fact that Iran has the right to a nuclear energy program (according the the Non-Proliferation Treaty). If they want to demand that Iran voluntarily waive its right to nuclear energy, then significant incentives need to be offered. Use the carrot and the stick, not just the stick.

    In response to the prior comment about Iran’s need for energy, actually they *do* need another energy source. Currently, they have little oil refining capability, so they actually can’t just depend on their own oil. They have to export it, someone else refines it, then they import it back.

  6. The mushroom cloud photo is very dramatic. These bunker buster tactical nukes are actually low enough yield there is no muchroom cloud, no dangerous fallout and very small blast radius that would actually minimize collateral damage compared to big conventional weapons. On the other hand, there are conventional bombs that make nice mushroom clouds and have much larger blast radius (with more danger to civilians) and that cost more to produce (with more effect on US taxpayers). I hate to go all Dr. Strangelove on you, but you’re engaging in a sort of irrational mysticism about nuclear energy versus chemical energy that isn’t really justified. Also and much more importantly for those of us who would like to avoid any military action, the diplomatic options are going to be a whole lot more effective if the Iranians believe that ALL military options really are on the table. Maybe it won’t matter with Madman Ahmadinejad, but with the bulk of the Iranian government it will.

  7. And then you have the question of the ecological impacts and so forth. Even accounting for the radiological byproducts of nuclear fission powerstations, they produce far less ecological impact than petroleum power plants.

    It’s all well and good to have abundant oil; if your cities aren’t getting electricity, is everyone supposed to live in their car/truck/what-have-you? The erg/dollar ratio for nuclear energy is *far* less than it is for petroleum byproducts.

    And as an off-shoot… if they want non-icbm nukes, let ’em have them. After all — if it was sound strategy in the ’60’s, why wouldn’t it be today? (Isreal has a *massive* comparatively speaking nuclear arsenal. I’ve heard it said that it is the third largest nuclear power in the world. Perhaps second, even, today.)

    This is all facetiousness in its entirety. (cont’d)

  8. (cont’d)

    To the individual whom spoke of the dread of starting a nuclear war… consider this; the nuclear weapons being considered are tactical, low-yield “bunker-busters” and as such would *actually be appropriate technology*.

    We all have such knee-jerk reactions on the issue, though. Yes, it’s a can of worms, yes, it’s wrong to even invade Iran in the first place…

    But let’s be honest about what our motives are, ‘k?

    Besides; if we drop nukes on them… they can only hope to nuke our localized military installations. Which they won’t do… because there are innocent muslims by the millions within range of each and every one of the missiles they could develop.

  9. I’m ready. Let’s nuke them. Now they are threatening to cut off our hands. I’m all for a country of radioactive solid glass.

  10. Tom,

    The political implications, both foreign and domestic, of the use of ANY nuke (ground burst, air burst, subterranian, et al) in Iran will change the shape of the planet far more the TNT equivalent of any mechanism used to create the blast.

  11. What if the USA attacked Iran conventionally using Iraq as a launch pad? Should we trust Iraq guarding our back? Would using Afghanistan as a launch pad be better?

    No matter what the USA uses to attack Iran, the cost of clean up will be paid by American tax payers. Conventional warfare is easier and less expensive to clean up than nuclear warfare.

    Some day, the American tax payers will have to pay for all these wars they want to wage.

  12. To those who wonder why Iran needs nuclear power – ask Dick Cheney. After all, during the Ford Administration he was trying to sell nuclear reactors to Iran. Of course, that was when the US installed Shah was in power.

    While we have people in the US who support turning nations into “radioactive solid glass”, maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about “madmen” in other nations.

    In fact, maybe it is time to acknowledge that there is a good possibility that a madman is in charge of America.

  13. Comment by Paul Pace

    “I really don’t think even Bush is stupid [BZZT!!!] or stubborn [BZZZT!!!] enough to start another war [BZZZT!!!], especially a nuclear one [BZZZT!!!].

    No offense, man… apparently, I just do not see this the same way you do, Paul…

  14. I think what they meant by “mushroom clouds” is a collection of angry Muslims ready to rise-up, looking for any excuse to act-out on their racially-murderes inhibitions, exploding in front of anyone or anything that defies their ideals.

    It might seem silly to some of you but, as far as I know, most true Muslims don’t have any real form of entertainment, other than radical religion that lost touch with reality, to keep them idle throughout their youth. As a result, their culture possesses the truest and rawest form of humanity, with each subsequent generation exacerbating the next. All people of this earth are equally capable of committing the same atrocities and, in the process, many will stumble upon dark feelings of unexplained pleasure. These are the sort of everyday people who have managed to wake the deeply-rooted traits of human nature, during the development cycle of their youth–like the furor George W. Bush for instance.

  15. Can anyone come up with an incredible idea of how to make friends with the Muslims? How do you make friends with a culture that is insane?

    I think Bombing them will just scatter their insanity.

  16. Sure, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the Muslim version of Hitler, Jesse Helms, David Duke, and Tim McVeigh, but is that a reason to kick his and his country’s butt? The way I see it, Bush and Ahmadinejad see themselves as the biggest bullies, the Earth as their gang turf, throwing stones and using strong rhetoric at each other. Sticks and stones- oh boohoo. Iran may have alot of teeth in its nuclear program, but just how much of a threat are they? Are they dumb enough to start any crap with any country for no reason? Is BUSH dumb enough to…WAIT….yeah Im afraid he is. IMPEACH!!!!!

  17. Capitalism is the best friend-making tool there is as long as one remembers to respect the others’ property rights.

    So much of what we’re dealing with is a false perception. This country this, that country that; this religion this, that religion that: no wonder we get into fights.

    We need to solve it one-on-one. Remember individuality? Anything less is bigotry. We should make friends, trade, and set a good example. If they want investors to come in, a country has to have a stable environment, and if they want tourists, it has to be even more stable. Capitalism is a civilizing influence and the solution to this problem is a natural process. We should stop trying to force it.

  18. We should nuke the entire middle east. Hell id push the button for free if they asked me.

  19. Sandra,
    Sounds like it might work, but there is very little flexibility in the Muslim religion to allow for capitalism–the penalty would be death by decapitation(thought i could be wrong).

    I don’t believe in racial division, and i think that what trully differs between people is their culture and the destructive pride it induces.

  20. Guess what, if you don’t like Muslims – leave them alone. If you want to do business with Muslims – do business. If you like Muslims – make them your friends.

    Not all Muslims are crazy and not all Americans are crazy. But it seems like a lot of crazy Americans and crazy Muslims are making each other even crazier and it is the sane Muslims and sane Americans that have to suffer.

    Muslims have complained for decades that they don’t like intervention by the West. The West responds with more intense intervention and meddling. The more the West intervenes, the more enemies are created. The more enemies there are, the more the West intervenes.

    Now, isn’t it just amazing that a group of people express an intense hatred for those who threaten to commit genocide on them with nuclear bombs. Yet, the people with the nukes feel threatened when the people they want to murder respond negatively.

    It seems there are madmen lurking everywhere.

  21. Hey I know! Just drop a series of 1000 pound weed bombs in Muslim towns, followed by a large payload of ipods loaded with music. Under the influence, I don’t think they will be able to prevent themselves from using the new gadgets, though the RIAA might try to sue them. Anyway, maybe they’ll become hippies and have some “deep thoughts” of forgiveness and peace or something. After their ideas are softened by the heavenly clouds of smoke, we could televise a US national day of apology to the Muslim world on Aljazeera. Oh well, just a random thought.

    PS: I dont use drugs.