[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Israel Wants...

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The scariest argument yet for the Iran-is-next line.  The
American government is surely capable of it.  --CGE]

  December 16, 2005
  Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran
  And the nuclear hitmen behind it
  by Jorge Hirsch

Are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian
Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against
Iran at a moment's notice?

The answer is contained in presidential directive NSPD 35,
"Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization," issued May 2004,
which is classified. Nevertheless, we can infer the answer
from the fact that every other element needed for a nuclear
strike on Iran is now "deployed" and ready, namely:

    * The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley, Stephen Cambone,
Robert Joseph, William Schneider Jr., J.D. Crouch II, Linton
Brooks, and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who
advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the
top echelons of the Bush administration.
    * A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes
against non-nuclear countries that precisely fit the Iran
profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for
Joint Nuclear Operations."
    * The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush
administration and already put into practice in Iraq, and the
"National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"
(NSPD 17), which promises to respond to a WMD threat with
nuclear weapons.
    * 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are at
risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts, and who
thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the
use of nuclear weapons to defend them.
    * Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks
and their apparent willingness to support any course of action
that could potentially protect them from real or imagined
terrorist threats.
    * The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist
activities around the world [1], [2], including acts against
America [1], [2], and its alleged possession of weapons of
mass destruction.
    * The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that
Iran has connections with al-Qaeda.
    * Senate Joint Resolution 23, "Authorization for Use of
Military Force," which allows the president "to take action to
deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States"
without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Resolution
[.pdf], which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the
"global war on terror."
    * The Bush administration's willingness to use military
power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy
tales.
    * The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance
[.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes
it "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
    * The course of action followed by the Bush administration
with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology, which can
only lead to a diplomatic impasse.
    * The Israel factor [1], [2] .

I have discussed many of these elements in previous columns.
Here I will focus on the people, the doctrine, and the weapons.

Nuclear Hitmen

The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level in a
military conflict rests with the president. Neither Congress
nor state governments nor you nor I have to be consulted.
According to Robert McNamara (U.S. secretary of defense during
the Cuban missile crisis), to launch a nuclear attack requires
"20 minutes' deliberation by the president and his advisers."

In preparation for the nuclear strike on Iran, the Bush
administration in its second term has deployed into key
positions hardliners that have both expertise in nuclear
weapons and a known history of advocating the aggressive use
thereof. Thus the president can say, "I feel like I'm getting
really good advice from very capable people" to justify nuking
Iran.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Hadley is one of the coauthors of the document "Rationale and
Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" [.pdf],
which served as a blueprint for the " Nuclear Posture Review"
of 2001. In a 1997 paper, "Policy Considerations in Using
Nuclear Weapons," Hadley applauded the "many men and women"
who "have devoted their professional lives" to nuclear weapons
as having made "a significant contribution to our nation."
Further, "It is often an unstated premise in the current
debate that if nuclear weapons are needed at all, they are
needed only to deter the nuclear weapons of others. I am not
sure this unstated premise is true … this is not why we got
into the nuclear business." He was one of the leading
proponents of the claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons
program, and he was profiled in a 2004 Los Angeles Times
article as "A Hawk in Bush's Inner Circle Who Flies Under the
Radar."

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone
Cambone is Rumsfeld's right-hand man, another coauthor of
"Rationale and Requirements," and a longtime promoter of
missile-defense systems. If there is any doubt as to whether
he will promote the policies advocated in that document, let's
hear his own words: "Any policymaker has certain views.
Policymakers are where they are and doing what they do because
they have a view." (New York Times, April 11, 2003)

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs Robert Joseph
Joseph has the position formerly held by John Bolton and is
another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements." He also
helped draft the document "National Strategy to Combat Weapons
of Mass Destruction" (NSPD-17), which advocates the use of
nuclear weapons in response to WMD and names Iran as one of
the countries that are the focus of the new U.S. strategy. He
is a member of the National Institute for Public Policy, which
says on its Web page that Joseph is a leading promoter of
counterproliferation policy ("formulation and implementation
of national security strategies to counter proliferation
threats") and "criminalizing proliferation activities." He was
the National Security Council member supervising the portion
of the 2003 State of the Union speech dealing with
intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
According to Right Web, Joseph "advocates the offensive use of
nuclear weapons" and advocates placing "preemptive attacks and
weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national
security strategy."

In a recent interview, Joseph "dismissed Iran's contention it
seeks only civilian nuclear power," said that "Iran is closing
in on production of nuclear weapons and even UN sanctions may
not deter the aggressive government in Tehran," and averred
that "once they begin to enrich, that is the point of no
return," echoing similar statements by Israeli officials.

National Nuclear Security Administration Director Linton Brooks
Brooks oversees the country's nuclear weapons infrastructure
and is another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements." He
also served on the Pentagon's Deterrence Concepts Advisory
Panel, which was charged with overseeing the production of the
Nuclear Posture Review policy document. In explaining the
Nuclear Posture Review to the Senate Armed Services Committee
in 2004, Brooks stated [.pdf]:

"The Nuclear Posture Review represented a radical departure
from the past and the most fundamental rethinking of the roles
and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost a quarter-century. …
Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it
considered them as an integrated component of American
military power. … Instead of treating the future as static and
predictable, it recognized that requirements could change and
that U.S. nuclear forces must be prepared to respond to those
changes, including by increasing the fraction of the force
that is deployed. … The Nuclear Posture Review broadens our
thinking to encompass a New Triad of flexible response
capabilities consisting of non-nuclear and nuclear strike
capabilities."

In that address, he also advocated research on the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator initiative to "hold at risk hardened,
deeply buried facilities that may be important to a future
adversary," and repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear
weapons to allow research in "advanced concepts" of more
usable nuclear weapons. He stated, "We need to make sure our
weapons will in fact be seen by other countries as a
deterrent. One element of that is usability. If nobody
believes there is any circumstance where you will use the
weapon, it is not a deterrent."

Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board William
Schneider Jr.
Schneider is another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements."
He was a staff member at the Hudson Institute between 1967 and
1971, where "he contributed to studies on strategic forces,
Soviet affairs, theater nuclear force operations, and arms
control." In his own words, "The leakage of nuclear
weapons-design technology over time has become a flood in
recent years," and "Both Iran and Iraq sought to develop their
own military ballistic and cruise missiles as well as weapons
of mass destruction. In conjunction with offshore procurements
of conventional defense products, they produced formidable
military establishments posing an overwhelming threat to U.S.
allies."

Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch II
Crouch served as assistant secretary of defense from 2001 to
2003, and was the "principal advisor to the secretary of
defense on the formulation and coordination of policy … for
nuclear forces, missile defense, technology security policy,
counterproliferation, and arms control." In a briefing he gave
on the Nuclear Posture Review in 2002, he stated, "Now, we are
trying to look at a number of initiatives. One would be to
modify an existing weapon, to give it greater capability
against deep and hardly – or hard targets and deeply-buried
targets." He is characterized as a "nuclear weapons enthusiast."

Conclusion? None of these people, when asked for advice, is
likely to advise against the use of nuclear weapons for
reasons that you or I would find eminently reasonable [1],
[2], [3], [4], [5].

Finally, there is the infamous John Bolton. While
undersecretary of state, he warned that "efforts to attain
nuclear weapons pose a direct and undeniable threat to the
United States and its friends and allies around the world.
Whether the nuclear capabilities of states like Iran, North
Korea and others are threats today, or threats tomorrow, there
can be no dispute that our attention is required now before
the threats become reality, and tens of thousands of innocent
civilians, or more, have been vaporized." Concerning Iran
specifically, he stated that "Iran has a covert program to
develop and stockpile chemical weapons," that "Tehran probably
maintains an offensive BW program," and in this connection
that the "risks to international peace and security from such
programs are too great to wait for irrefutable proof of
illicit activity." Concerning missiles, he said, "Iran
continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to
deliver weapons of mass destruction," and just like his
successor, he stated categorically that "Iran has a
clandestine program to produce nuclear weapons." Today, John
Bolton is "deployed" as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,
where he will be most effective (simply cutting and pasting
from his old speeches) explaining to the world why a nuclear
strike on Iran was necessary.

Note that there is no obvious reason why the national security
advisor, the deputy national security advisor, the
undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the chairman of
the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, and the U.S. ambassador
to the United Nations have to be people with experience in
nuclear weapons policy. This was not the case in other
administrations. That it is the case in this administration is
highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Instead, it gives a
strong indication that it was envisioned in advance that the
use of nuclear weapons would be a central theme of the second
term of the Bush administration.

Doctrine Deployment

The Bush administration has been busy in recent years
"deploying" the doctrine that will underpin the upcoming
nuclear strike against Iran. Some of this deployment occurred
through presidential speeches, some through unclassified
policy documents, and some through classified documents, parts
of which were "leaked." It has been a well-orchestrated
process with a clear purpose: that the more alert sectors of
the public and policymakers, and in particular the arms
control community, become fully aware of it, so that when
nuclear weapons are used it does not come as a total surprise.
At the same time, the mainstream media have provided little
coverage on the radical change in the nuclear weapons doctrine
(a few articles in the New York Times and Washington Post), so
the issue has remained largely invisible to the general public.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
of September 2002 codifies the doctrine of preemptive attacks,
with phrases such as

"We cannot let our enemies strike first…"

"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the
capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries…"

"[E]ven if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the
enemy's attack…"

"[T]he United States cannot remain idle while danger gathers…"

This doctrine was used with Iraq and will be used next with Iran.

The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
states, "The United States will continue to make clear that it
reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force –
including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of WMD
against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and
allies."

The Nuclear Posture Reviewdelivered to Congress in 2001 is
classified, but portions have been made public. It
substantially broadens the role of nuclear weapons from their
traditional role as deterrents against nuclear countries to
encompass non-nuclear "rogue" nations. It states that "U.S.
nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from
undertaking military programs or operations that could
threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends," and
that "Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able
to withstand non-nuclear attack."

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf] is the
Pentagon's implementation of the new nuclear posture.
According to Hans Kristensen's analysis, "Foremost among the
doctrine's new features [is] the incorporation of preemption
into U.S. nuclear doctrine…." It lists a variety of new
conditions under which nuclear weapons will be used,
including, "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S.
terms," "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use
nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD," and against
"An adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S.,
multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations."

The "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and
Arms Control" [.pdf] was produced by the National Institute
for Public Policy and served as a basis for the Nuclear
Posture Review. Furthermore, five of its authors are in key
positions in the administration today as discussed above, and
as a consequence, the contents of this document are likely to
reflect also the views of these policymakers and forecast the
future actions of the administration. Statements in this
document include:

    * "[A] counterforce strategy will entail more targets,
including many that are harder to find and are better protected…"
    * "[A] larger number of weapons, weapons with varied
characteristics and greater accuracy, will be needed for a
counterforce strategy…"
    * "Hardened targets built underground and deeply buried
facilities are the most difficult to destroy and will
influence the required number and characteristics of nuclear
weapons…"
    * "Examples of hardened and buried targets include missile
silos, launch control centers, concrete aircraft shelters,
deeply buried command posts, tunnels for missile storage and
assembly, storage bunkers, and underground facilities for
weapons research and production…"
    * "For example, although conventional weapons could be
used to attack the entrances, exits, or 'umbilicals' –
electrical power, air supply, and communications links – of a
deeply buried facility, one or more nuclear weapons might be
required to destroy the facility itself…"
    * "To ensure that enemy facilities or forces are knocked
out and cannot be reconstituted, attacks with nuclear weapons
may be necessary. Indeed, in the future the United States may
need to field simple, low-yield, precision-guided nuclear
weapons for possible use against select hardened targets such
as underground biological weapons facilities." 

In summary, the doctrines proclaimed by the administration
envision preemptive nuclear attacks on enemy facilities
suspected of harboring WMD and other "assets most valued" by
the enemy.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployment

It is generally believed that the U.S. has tactical nuclear
weapons deployed only in Western Europe, remnants of the Cold
War. According to Hans Kristensen of the Nuclear Information
Project:

"The 480 bombs deployed in Europe represent more than 80
percent of all the active B61 tactical bombs in the U.S.
stockpile. No other U.S. nuclear weapons are forward-deployed
(other than warheads on ballistic missile submarines)." [.pdf]

According to Kristensen, the Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Authorization Presidential Directive (NSPD 35) merely
"authorizes the military to continue deployment of tactical
nuclear weapons in Europe." However, Kristensen himself states
that the new Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations calls "for
maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high
alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), preemptively if necessary."

The reasons listed above make it essentially certain that NSPD
35 authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the
Persian Gulf, and it is likely that such deployment has
already occurred and that the weapons are there for the
specific purpose of targeting Iran. The U.S. had tactical
nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea for many years to
defend against a massive conventional North Korean attack. It
is easy to argue that an invasion of southern Iraq by a
9-million strong Iranian Basij militia reacting to Israel's
bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be stopped without
nuclear weapons.

The following statements in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations [.pdf] suggest that tactical nuclear weapons have
been already deployed and are ready to be used, given that
"all options are on the table" with respect to Iran and that
many of Iran's facilities are underground:

    * "Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will
ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S.
leaders with a broader range of strike options to address
immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and
nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any
comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal
targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the
probability of escalation."
    * "Combatant commanders may consider the following target
selection factors to determine how to defeat individual
targets. … 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to
withstand conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4.
Surrounding geology and depth (for underground targets). 5.
Required level of damage."
    * "Nuclear weapons and associated systems may be deployed
into theaters, but combatant commanders have no authority to
employ them until that authority is specifically granted by
the president."
    * "Deployed nuclear-strike capabilities include …
theater-based, nuclear-capable dual-role aircraft."
    * "Nuclear-capable aircraft offer a greater degree of
flexibility in escalation control because they may be a highly
visible sign of resolve and, once ordered to conduct a nuclear
strike, are recallable, if necessary. Aircraft-delivered
weapons also provide strike capability across the range of
nuclear operations." 

The F-16 fighter planes, of which there are many deployed in
Iraq and surrounding American bases, are such dual-role
aircraft, capable of delivering B61-11 earth-penetrating
nuclear bombs.

The Public Has a right to know

It is likely that the administration has briefed key senators
(e.g., John Warner, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein,
Joe Lieberman) on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons
in the Persian Gulf as classified information, arguing that it
is necessary to protect American troops in Iraq against an
unprovoked Iranian attack, and the American people from a
possible terrorist attack with WMD sponsored by Iran, and that
making the information public could endanger American forces
in Iraq or make a terrorist attack more likely.

However, the use of nuclear weapons by the United States is a
grave decision that affects every man, woman, and child in
America (not to mention the rest of the world). The American
public has a right to know if its government has deployed
nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf targeting Iran, because
given the circumstances described above, it is highly likely
that those weapons will be used. The administration has
created the circumstances to make it appear that the upcoming
use of nuclear weapons against Iran will be "unavoidable." The
most likely (though not the only) scenario is that Israel will
"pull the trigger," bombing some Iranian facilities, and that
the U.S. will be dragged into the conflict to protect
American, Iraqi, and Israeli lives. The use of low-yield
nuclear weapons to destroy underground Iranian facilities and
deter an Iranian response will appear to be the most "humane"
path to achieve U.S. goals of eliminating Iran's nuclear
program and destroying its military capabilities, minimizing
casualties, and achieving "rapid and favorable war termination
on US terms."

The American public and the rest of the world will not fall
for this deception. The circumstances surrounding the nuking
of Iran were created with the specific intent of making the
use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. "unavoidable." The real
purpose of nuking Iran is to establish the credibility of U.S.
nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any undesirable action
by "rogue" states.

If Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other nuclear hitmen are
really convinced that this is the best course of action for
America, they should make their case public now. The president
should tell the American people that the exercise of "all
options" against Iran will include nukes. He should allow for
a democratic debate on the pros and cons of using nuclear
weapons in the Iran situation, and on pursuing alternative
courses of action, before it is too late.

The president was not elected on an agenda of nuking a
non-nuclear country, and the radical views of the nuclear
hitmen are not likely to be the views of the majority of
Americans.

If the president engages in the use of nuclear weapons against
Iran in the coming weeks or months, without disclosing the
preparations to the American public, he will be making a
mockery of the most fundamental democratic principles that
America represents. And he will have provided clear evidence
of duplicitous intent, no matter how many eloquent speeches he
delivers afterwards.

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263