According to Sy Hersh, the Pentagon has drawn up war plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This is news? The Pentagon devises war plans for all sorts of situations. In almost all cases, these plans are not implemented. That the Bush administration has contingency plans to drop nuclear warheads on Iranian nuclear facilities is no indictment against it. Carrying out those plans is another story. Using nuclear weapons in a wartime situation is horrific enough. Using them in a non-wartime situation is tough to justify, even in the most extreme circumstances. Let's hope this talk within the Bush administration is just talk. Let's hope so because we can't afford to hope that the talk from the Iranians is just talk.

UPDATE: President Bush today labelled talk of a nuclear strike on Iran "wild speculation." The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, dubbed the internal discussions regarding using nuclear weapons on Iran "normal millitary contingency planning."

sounds like yer on south park. go ahead and put your head in the sand and hope. bush knows the threat these aholes are. he must lead, and if it means nukes so be it. you make it sound like he will light up there cities. my take is there talking bunker buster nukes on underground targets.

Tag'm&bag'm: I don't recall South Park ever having an episode where they accused people of having their heads in the sand who don't care to drop nuclear bombs on Muslim countries. I do remember an episode where they accused non-Muslims who wish to censor images of Muhammed as having their heads in the sand. Is it possible that you are confusing these very different ideas?

Looking at the diagram on the page it would seem we'd be using a bunker buster nuke dialed to 100 kilotons. Even if it is no where near a city, won't these things create a massive amount of fallout? The bomb itself detonates only 20 ft underground, isn't there still going to be one hell of a blast radius? Hiroshima was 22 kilotons right?

Now that's a foreign policy I can get on board with: Converting Iran into the largest piece of glass in the world.

Before we start lobbing nukes, could we maybe get an actual declaration of war from Congress?

"We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran...In other words, we don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now." -G.W. Bush, 12/23/04.

See what happens when you continue the stupid policies of your predecessor, especially when the previous occupant of your house was such a collosal failure? You get nowhere, and are eventually forced into a corner where the only options are horrific, such as this plan being discussed. Is this the best we can do with re: our foreign policy? I'm not one to rail too much against economic sanctions, but some cultures just DON'T value wealth the way we do. Cutting off the flow of consumer goods doesn't have the same effect in Tehran as it would have in, say, Paris.

So...we continue our non-policy towards Iran, in the vain hope that the desire for HDTV will bring them to their senses...and our lack of engagement allows a genunie madman to ascend the presidency (which also strengthens the nutcase Mullahs). This, in a country where, prior to the Iraq invasion, the huge population of young people actually had a very favorable opinion towards the US. We couldn't influence the people to be more moderate? Is the art of diplomacy totally dead!?!

I just can't believe this is really the best we can do.

Do SEE what happens????

Do you SEE what happens????

I am quite sure that a military confrontation with Iran is coming. Either right after the 06 elections, should the GOP hold the house, or next summer, right after the Congress adjourns, should the DNC take it.

Or, if Iran closes the Straight of Hormuz, as they are currently threatning to: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6605

It could be much sooner than that.

Either way, I feel a strike on Iran is coming, one that will coincide with a large assault against the Mahdi Army and Iranian Revolutionary Guard units inside Iraq. We simply cannot win the Iraq War without a confrontation with the Iranians. The Bush administration knows that, and they have no qualms about carrying it out.

The idea of a nuclear strike against Iran however, is, I am quite sure, hogwash. Hersh is drumming it up to be far more important than it is because of his own inherent political bias.

At this time, there should be only one reason for us to continue to have troops in Iraq or to consider dropping any kind of ordinance on Iran and that would be if we intend to occupy them to secure their oil reserves. Other than that, we have no business there.

Dan, I thought they put their heads in the dirt cuz they were scared. Didnt want to face the problem. the problem with Iran is REAL! Mullahs with nukes might not bother you but it does me. Now that goober chavez talkin about a new pact with Iran. If that isnt a case for nukes then what is? maybe if New York goes up first then its ok?

Excuse me, tag'm&bag'm, did you think the problem with Iraq WMD was real, too? Forgive me for being a cynic. Unfortunately, I think a lot of Americans, and quite a few foreigners, are pretty cynical about U.S. intelligence. Tragically, this might be a boy who cried wolf scenario, where too many times making false claims results in diminished support for action on this true, and urgent, claim.

Iran having nukes bothers me. The United States using nukes bothers me too. If Chavez talking with Iran isn't a case for nuclear weapons then what is? Well, a communist talking with a bunch of religious fanatics isn't a case for nukes. It's a case of strange bedfellows.

"At this time, there should be only one reason for us to continue to have troops in Iraq or to consider dropping any kind of ordinance on Iran and that would be if we intend to occupy them to secure their oil reserves. Other than that, we have no business there." -asdf

Iraq as a platform for military bases is much more potent than Iraq's oil. The best argument for staying in Iraq, besides the obvious moral imperative we have to help them fix what we broke, is that Iraq will serve as a platform for a unified, politically potent US military fist in the Middle East. Something we lost when Saudi Arabia gave us the boot in 2001.

Oh,and for those who believe Bush Lied, US INTELL BELIEVED SADDAM WAS "CLOSE TO ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS" AT END OF CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/04/us_intell_believed_saddam_was.html

Also, Spengler has come out to say that a US military attack on Iran is coming:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD11Ak03.html

When Spengler says something is going to happen, you can bet it is. He's almost never been wrong.

So Iran declared today that they have now successfully enriched uranium for the production of nuclear power. How does that threaten our security? Using nuclear power has always been their prerogative under the non-proliferation treaty they are already a signatory to. Diplomacy and deterrence is the answer to dealing with Iran as a potential threat. Neither sanctions or military actions (which sanctions are actually) would be licit.