Nestled deep in George Bush’s latest $190 billion request to Congress for
emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a tantalising
little item that has received scant attention.
The US Department of Defence has asked for an additional $88 million to modify
B2 stealth bombers so that they can carry a 30,000lb bomb called the massive
ordnance penetrator (or MOP, in the disarming acronymic vernacular of the
military). The MOP is an advanced form of a “bunker buster”, an
air-delivered weapon with an explosive capacity to destroy targets deep
underground. Explaining the request, the Administration says it is in
response to an “urgent operational need from theatre commanders”. What kind
of emergency could that be?
It’s possible that the US Air Force wants more firepower in the hunt for Osama
bin Laden and al-Qaeda as they skulk in their caves in Afghanistan. But that
wouldn’t require stealth bombers – the sleek, black-skinned, radar-dodging
darts of the US military. The Americans own the skies over Afghanistan and
Iraq and could, if they wished, blanket the two countries with all manner of
bombardment from a few thousand feet in broad daylight.
So what lies somewhere between Iraq and Afghanistan that might demand the
urgent deployment of a stealth aircraft that can quietly drop a 30,000lb
bomb and destroy something several storeys below ground? The secret wine
cellars in Tehran that house the illicit stash of vintage clarets belonging
to the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The vast collection of grey
polyester suits and Iranian goody bags that lie in wait for the next batch
of luckless British sailors?
Pat yourself on the back if you correctly identified the subterranean nuclear
enrichment facilities operated by the Iranian Government in its pursuit of
an epoch-altering Bomb.
The debate in Washington about what to do with the increasingly recalcitrant
and self-confident Iranian regime has taken a significant turn in the past
few weeks. And the decision to upgrade the bombing capacity of the US
military is perhaps the most powerful indication yet that the debate is
reaching a climax.
A number of developments have tilted the argument towards a more assertive US
posture. First, even the ever-optimistic Sisyphuses at the State Department
are tiring of pushing the rock of diplomatic futility up the slopes of
Russian intransigence. It’s clear even to the most starry-eyed of
Russophiles that Moscow, under its breathtakingly arrogant and ambitious
President, has no intention of lifting a finger to help the US and its
allies with serious economic measures that might persuade the Iranians to
disarm. (This is a staggeringly shortsighted decision given the threat posed
by a militant, nuclear-armed Islamist state on the borders of former Soviet
republics with large Muslim populations.) Meanwhile, China too continues its
myopic pursuit of global commercial opportunities to the exclusion of its
long-term strategic security.
At the same time other diplomatic signalling has become much more favourable.
France has long been an advocate of a hardline approach towards Iran and
Nicolas Sarkozy’s Government has recently indicated its willingness to put
its military wherewithal where its mouth is.
Then there was the resignation last week of Ali Larijani as the chief Iranian
nuclear negotiator. Those of us who have watched Mr Larijani’s deadpan
performances over the years as he has explained Iran’s wholly peaceful
intentions to international conferences have wondered how long he could keep
it up.
It’s possible he just got fed up with the effort of telling all those lies to
disbelieving Western audiences. But the more likely explanation, among Iran
watchers in Washington, is that he failed to convince the religious leaders
to whom he was accountable to rein in the lunatic reveries of Mr
Ahmadinejad. So much, by the way, for the old comforting contention that the
mullahs didn’t really share the President’s apocalyptic messianism on the
issue of the Bomb.
Another significant development was what happened last month when Israeli jets
attacked a target inside Syria. The details remain murky but
it looks increasingly as though Israel may have pulled off a near-repeat of
its 1981 takeout of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. The word in parts of
the US Government is that the assault went encouragingly well, defanging an
emerging threat, and, crucially doing so without obviously provoking a
devastating backlash against Israel and its allies.
Iran is not Syria, of course. Its tentacles, through terrorist networks around
the world, are much more extensive. But the biggest argument within the US
against military action in Iran has always been that such a move would
inflame public opinion, causing the Iranian people – who despise their
regime perhaps more than the Americans do – to rally around the Government,
while, at the same time, not doing enough to set back the nuclear programme.
Now the US thinks it has the intelligence and the military capacity to
undermine the Iranian threat seriously, and the costs of doing so may not be
as high as once seemed.
Of all the silly arguments that pass as conventional wisdom in this debate is
the claim that the US would be crazy to start a war with Iran. It’s a silly
argument because America is already at war with Iran. Every day US soldiers
in Iraq are attacked by Iranian-financed paramilitaries, with
Iranian-produced weapons in pursuit of Iranian political objectives. Iran is
manipulating the Iraqi Government in ways that undercut the steady progress
the US is making in Iraq.
The only real question about the next phase in this war is whether an
escalation by the US, in a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear
facilities, would further American – and Western – objectives, or impede
them. The evidence is increasingly suggesting that the costs of not acting
are equal to or larger than the costs of acting.
Military action is not inevitable; yesterday the US again emphasised the
diplomatic option with a strengthening of economic sanctions. And it’s still
possible that someone will prevail on the Iranians to ditch their menacing
and destructive aims. But it is starting to look as though, with not much
more than a year left in his term, President Bush has decided, as he surveys
the unedifying global territory of ideological and state-backed terror, that
he needs to clean house.
And a 30,000lb MOP might be just the job.
how come iran hasnt threatened any nation nor invaded any nation nor bombed any nation yet its being demonised by the west, i suppose its nothing to do with the fact thats its the 2nd largest oil holder, and doesnt want to sell to the thieving americnas
ahmed, bham,
If Iran thought they could win, they would have sent 300,000 troops across the border. It took a week to make the Iraqi army crumble with barely 30,000, at point, soldiers. It took Iran 6 years of war to come up with a stalemate. Iran is not stupid. And since they are not stupid, they know that a spineless West, and even worse a UN, will not stop them from building a bomb. What then? Will they listen to the "vibrant protests" of the European and American infidels when they decide to use it? Please be rational and not ideologues.
M, Milwaukee, USA
So, the U.S. bombs Iran. In response the Iranians send 300,000 troops across the border into Iraq to fight the 160,000 American soldiers there. What then?
Norris Hoyt, Norwich, Vermont, USA
by 'clean house' i take it ya mean 'clean the planet'--could ya be any more ironic or foolish? there's a tremendous difference between supplying military aid to another nation and engaging in war directly. the soviet union and the u.s. were not, in fact, at war during the cold war, and we are not at war with iran. and thanks for the summary of the unstated cost benefit analysis, ya were ever so close to being relevant. the bush administration stinks, and the american people know it.
glen broemer, los angeles, ca
Well said Marty Lund, Laveen, AZ!
I am a supporter of diplomacy when at all possible, however, it goes back to the simple principle in life....watch what people do, not what they say and you will know their true intentions. Mr Ahmadinejad has given many speeches to the West (and anyone else who would listen in the media), but his actions speak of a different intention. One of the comments stated "a just war can only be waged as a last resort" and I agree with that to a certain extent, however, who determines when the last resort has been taken? The U.N.? I will tell you not many Americans have faith that the U.N. has our best interests at heart, or quite frankly, the best interests of democracy at heart.
Cheryl, Birmingham, AL/USA
Your article is so breathtakingly chauvinistic that just about every sentence should be challenged, but there isn't the space here.
So I'll confine myself to three comments. Do you not consider it remarkably ill-mannered and disrespectful to talk about the Head of State of a sovereign nation - a Muslim HoS - as owning a stash of fine claret?
It is well-known that these bombs will not penetrate a hardened facility beyond a certain depth. What they *will* do, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is irradiate the surrounding area for generations to come.
Lastly, you are talking about a pre-emptive strike against a State that is threatening nobody. The Nuremberg judges averred that such an action was the worst of the worst, and on that basis the Nazi leadership was tried.
The US has all but succeeded in sidelining all the human rights and other conventions it has signed up to since WWII. Do you really expect Europe and Russia to continue trotting along behind?
John Annis, London,
As a former member of the US military who was stationed in Bahrain and Iraq during Dessert Sheild/Storm, i would like to add my "2 cents" I have read all of the comments and some are thoguht out a are intellegents arguments for and against. But some like the one from Richard in Sydney makes me cringe at the ignorance and his arrogance at the situatiuon. All of our "activities in foreign policy have had to do with regime change" From the Revolutionary War to Iraq. I might suggest to Mr. Moss that you remember Australia's role in WWII as Great Brittains little ally in the south. Had it not been for the American victory at Coral Sea. New Guinea would still be a Japanese terriotry. We act to protect and defend others. That is what most American believe and think. Our Administration sometimes fosters this belief with their actions but not always. We do not want to be the world police, but who else has stepped up to the plate? Australia. I think not. Remeber history repeats
Martin , Phoenix, AZ/ USA
Of course there were no concerns whatsoever when just a month ago, Russia showed on TV a giant fuel-air bomb (thermobaric device) which its military now claims is the biggest non-nuclear explosive device in the world.
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
Anyone who has any understanding of the alleged "stupid" President Bush needs take a deep breath and look back at what has changed in the last 7 years. He has fundametally changed the world on his schedule and according to his plan, while his detractors are not even a postscript to history. Iran's government is next, unless they finally understand the nature of their enemy. Maybe they should import a few Arnold Swartzennager...movies. They keep painting a target on themselves. Let's redefine stupid as ignoring the absolute danger of the lethal American Air Force and the determination and "stupid" conviction of George W Bush. Whilte I am not a Bush supporter, even I can see where this is all going to end up. Wake Up Iran.
Russell, Texas, USA
Although American, I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Bush or his policies. Also, I had several Iranian friends while at university whom I liked very much; and I am sure that the Iranian people are not our enemy. Unfortunately, the Iranian government does not represent the will of the Iranian people, but the prejudices of its leaders and the zealotry of the mullahs. Can we really afford to let this government become a nuclear power? I would not support a land war against the peoploe of Iran, but an airstrike against their nuclear facilities will have my support unless good faith negotiations resume.
carla rodriguez, hazleton, pa, usa
All the Iranians need to do is build a multilayered explosive shell (explosive armor) over whatever they want to protect and the bomb will explode on the surface. And by the way, stealth bombers only resistant to radar detection, but are completely vulnerable to heat seeking missles.
Ruddy, Munich, Germany
"Iran is manipulating the Iraqi Government in ways that undercut the steady progress the US is making in Iraq."
Steady progress? Aha. Ha. Ha. Ha ha ha.
Have you been avidly watching Fox News, Gerard?
Paul, Glasgow, Scotland
It's for the Three Gorges. A punitive response if China should attempt to invade Taiwan, without going nuclear.
B, Oslo,
The purpose of this bomb project is solely to siphon more American tax dollars into the coffers of the military industry.
Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany
If Iran were to make a bomb it would probably make them more responsible. If they were to use it the international community would no longer have an excuse to hold back and would nuke them back to the stone age, and every country that holds a nuclear weapon knows this. It is silly that the US continues to think we can continue to influence events or change minds with bombs. Bush and his ilk have no idea what diplomacy and tact are and the have deminished the percieved might of the US military by trying to make the world come to their viewpoint by throwing it's weight around. It will take 50 years to win back the idea of the good will America had in the world before Bush took the presidency.
T, Milwaukee, USA
Peace is not the absence of war between nation-states. Iran is not "peaceful." Regimes that brutally repress and murder "their own people," such as the former USSR, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, and forces in Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Sudan are conducting the oldest and most base form of violence and warfare on the planet.
The assertion that because a nation "does not go around bombing other countries" it is "peaceful" is a shameful failure of logic, reason, and conscience. Totalitarian regimes ruling their subjects at gun-point are the true abominations, not the regretfully necessary wars waged to remove them.
Marty Lund, Laveen, AZ
Iran is a civilsation of many thousand years. You cannot MOP away civilisations or civilisational plans over night. Why can't Iran possess a N bomb? Because it will wipe out the israeli monopoly of it in the Middle east. I say give everyone a bomb and then the world will be a safer place. Wasn't that Thatcher's point?
basit K, Lonon,
"Does China go bombing other states? Does Russia?" (Richard Moss, Sydney, Australia)
Well, yes, Russia had a pretty good go at it in Afghanistan & more latterly Chechnya.
China is more subtle, playing the long game & subverting other regions (notably Africa), whilst denuding their natural resources. And they did manage to suppress Tibet militarily, which they illegally occupy.
The US has never been subtle, preferring to *bomb 'em back to the Stoneage*.
At least with the upfront approach, you know where you are.
Patrick, Newcastle,
fPlease don't refer to people as the "Americans". We voted for PEACE not war in our last election. It is the Executive Branch of the American government, not the real American people who are war mongers or whimpy Congress that refuses to cut the funding.
James, Verona, USA
We have to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities by any means possible as the Iranian President have clearly stated their intention to "wipe Israel off the map" and after Israel, I wonder who's next - USA? UK ? France ? We must not live under the shadow of this threat from a country committed to the destruction of Israel. I'm not Jewish, have no Jewish friends but I have Iranian friends and am not against the Iranian people. Just against the policies of its Government and the Iranian Republican Guards.
james, Bexhill-on-Sea,
The arrogance of the Americans? Biggest threat to world peace? Might I remind those with short memories that the US carried the financial and military burden of opposing the Soviet Union (remember them?) for 40 years, allowing the rest of the world (including Australia) to go about their business unmolested by a power that would have, without the resistence and will of the Americans, happily absorbed as much of the world as they could (including Australia). Should I go back even further, when the Japanese were at the gates of Australia? Thousand of American soldiers died in New Guinea to preserve that country and others from a fate that surely would have worse than death.
While I do not, and have never, supported George Bush's insane war in Iraq, I firmly believe that when the chips are down for our allies, the US will be there, plugging away to protect world peace and our friends. Ask yourself this question...who else is going to do it? Australia?
Mike Lindgren, San Bernardino, US/California
The Iran threat has to be faced by the west - it will get worse if it isn't dealt with now - they hate the west and all we stand for, as do a lot of other states - if Iran wants to be the example, it's up to them, but I fear an example has to be made for the good of the tolerant easy going people of the rest of the world - it would be cowardice not to deal with this threat to our way of life.
Marty, London, England
To those that think the Euro-American alliance will split when, not if, the US destroys the Iranian nukes, think again. Every country in Europe, including Russia, will breath a sigh of relief. Folks we will destroy the Iranian capability to wage nuclear war. Deal with it.
Steve In Tucson, Tucson, USA/Az
I fear for even more divided and fearful world. If America is to attack Iran, good luck for Isreal, the ultimate beneficiary.
Tahir Shan, London, UK
The world can't let every oil rich country buy nuclear know how from Pakistan - and then hold the rest of the world to ransom - if the US can do something about it - and they do, we owe them thanks - if Iran wants to be the example that gets smacked, they have asked for it...............please and thank you America........ - just for the record I was against the second invasion of Irag - another smack like the first would have been enough in my view - as another said I think Pakistan is a big threat to the world and should also be sorted out one way or another.
Marty, London, England
I cannot understand why US wants base in every country? And what happens, if any country do not submit to demand they will force them, divide them, sanction supplies and create rift with their neighbour & reasons they give is to protect our interest!! To protect US so in future they do as we tell them (dictation)
Their target from Africa to China, looking at the world map; they have acquired bases in many countries & now threatening all reaming country. W Africa, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Iraq (& see how they done the job! WMD turned into Liberalisation then into war on terror then Terrorist then Iranian insurgent (next target) or if nothing else blame Al-Qaeda they have got Afghan, Pakistan, working on India, Bangladesh easy target, Burma easy opportunity now, Korea and north soon to fall remaining is China. CIA must be working in back ground (this is another form of organised Terrorism planner) this ambition look familiar
Yet UN keeps quit or been told by US to shut up
Dinesh, London,
Leave it to the Europeans( and Australians ) to settle this problem with Iran. Europe and the U.N. have done such an excellent job so far in negotiating with them. We should just let Europe (and Australia) handle the problem and just react only if our country is threatened directly. In the eyes of most Brits ( and Australians) the U.S. is never going to do anything but bring evils to the world. We are damned if we do and damned if we dont.
Jay, Dixie, S.C. USA
It is wise to be prepared for war. Having a weapon does not mean you will use it. In this case, it probably will be used.
I fear eventually nuclear weapons will be once again, used against human targets by one or more nations. However, having been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will just learn to live with it.
roger, london,
I notice that the Americans on this thread already regard it as a given that "we" will bomb Iran, just as "we" did Afghanistan and Iraq. Fool me once ... Talking of Bush, he has a track record: Every time he fails ignominiously at something, he opens up a second, or in this case third, front to "finally redeem himself". Every time he makes it worse.
Like Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran too is being "set up to fail" so that there will be "plausible deniability" to start yet another elective war, just to make our leaders look good. Enough already. We don't believe them any more, end of.
Julia Iskandar, London, England
This article makes me sick to my stomach, it is incredibly biassed & blindingly naieve, the only threat that Iran poses to the west is purely commercially, Iran has long been on Bush's list due to its ability to influence the oil marketplace. As for using giant bombs to destroy imaginary targets, what a great way to cover your tracks.. When will people wake up to the truth?
Sid, London, UK
I will only say this. There are risks under every single scenario presented here. Furthermore, presupposing that the issue is limited to offensive action by "an overly aggressive US" -- is totally naive. Imagine the environment in Tel Aviv -- they simply will not tolerate Iran having such weapons. How can they given the comments by Iranian leadership of an intent to wipe them off the map. If things continue and the US does not act . . . expect Israel to do so instead And who can possibly blame them, although there would be a world class whine-a-thon at the UN afterwards.
Ray, Sacramento, CA, USA
The US should allow Israel to use the bunker busters. No one could quarrel with that. After all how could Iran argue that a bunker buster had just blown up an orphanage? You don't put orphanages a thousand feet underground. You only dig that deep to hide harm-working nasties, like nuclear / chemical / biological weapons. Israel might even get one cheer from Iran's neighbours for offing premises like that.
Ike Eisenhower, Brisbane, Australia
"Does China go bombing other states?"
No, just forcibly annexing them.
"Does Russia?"
Depends what you consider Chechnya's status to be.
Knemon, Kallipolis,
Please get Mr Baker out of Washington. He is going officially mad talking to his conservative buddies. You think Iraq is bad? Imagine Iraq expanding to the rest of the Middle East. You do not think Iran will retaliate and push Iraq over the precipice, send oil prices spiralling, and bomb Israel? These are the costs of acting that are not defined by Baker and are not put against the completely uncertain costs of not acting.
Maybe someone should ask anyone of those neo-cons in Dick Cheney's office to take a poll of the Army' top officers and see what they think of this idea. Absolute madness
Joe, Washington DC,
I thought this was an excellent article with a realistic appreciation for the realities of the Iran-US positions. We will use the MOP on their underground nuclear facilities, but I am very certain the air campaign will also target command and control facilities, major weapons systems, their air force, and enough of their ground forces to keep them relatively harmless in the future.
Reis R. Kash, Springfield, Oregon, USA
This article does presuppose that the US complaints about Iran have some substance. I'd suggest that this was still something to be demonstrated. Rememebr that Iran's accusers are the same people who told us that Iraq had WMD, and how many of those were ever found?
John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand
Great article. The day the US lets Iran get the Bomb will be the last day it could be considered a superpower. The US already can't do much against China, Russia, Europe and even India. If a relativly small country like Iran is allowed to dominiate the stratigic Middle-East the US can close its Army and retreat back home. I don't think it's going to happen.
nir, jerusalem,
I am not a Christian, but I often turn to Christian writings for moral guidance. As I understand it, the doctrine of a just war rests on the following principles:
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong or as self-defense against an armed attack.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
A war can only be just if the peace established after the war is preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
A war with Iran of the type Baker wants would violate all of these principles. It would be a crime, and even worse, a blunder. For shame, Mr. Baker.
Stan Jacobs, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
I specifically check the Times on Tuesdays and Fridays to read Mr. Baker’s latest discourse. I recognize that he is an apologist for the United States and enjoy reading his columns.
I have also read other several columns on both sides suggesting some course of action (some of them actually going beyond “the US should _____ because _____ is a dorkâ€). At this point in time I am still hard pressed to agree that an air strike is the best option (which, like the upcoming presidential election, is an effort of picking the least of many evils).
Afghanistan is unstable because people have responded unexpectedly. Iraq is unstable because people have responded unexpectedly. With that track record, to state an assumption of reaction by someone else -- half a world away -- suggests overconfidence.
Unfortunately guessing wrong (either way) will be catastrophic.
Across the world people do unexpected things (the Darwin Awards are excellent proof of that).
Rebecca, Salt Lake City,
Could please people stop drawing analogies of Iraq & Iran. Iranians are not like the Iraqis nor are they arabs. To assume they have the same mentality & goals is a misleading notion.
Iran never had any beef with Israel nor is it in its plans to destroy it, Iran simply wants to become a regional player . I am not defending Iran but i am sick of those comparing it with Iraq, if Iran is hit, they will not sit by & wail, they will retaliate & things will worsen for everyone, not just iranians or middle easterners.
S. Ahmed, Barcelona,
Given the mess that the middle-east is already in shouldn't Bush just concentrate on not making the situation worse. It was only a few months ago they said Iran was 5-10 years away from a bomb. Given that I would feel a lot safer if Bush left office and let someone else, who hopefully would be competent, sort it out.
Chris, London,
It seems to me that the US has two problems.
First - the technical means of neutralising Iran's nuclear ambitions. The strength and abilities of airpower has been exaggerated since the 1920s Airpower may be significant, dominant or critical in any given circumstance - but it is rarely 100% effective. And if the USAF is to 'eliminate' Iran as a nuclear threat it has to be 100% effective first time.
Second - the strength of hostility to the US in Europe and Europe's inclinations toward appeasement. Any US military action is bound to cause another split in relations between the two sides of the Atlantic. Does it make any difference? Not if the USAF is 100% effective first time. But if the USAF fails - a second attack will be impossible. And the US will be dealing with a Europe largely sympathetic to Iranian 'resistance'.
If this problem would go away with one big bunker buster I would be the first to support action - I just don't think its going to be that simple.
H, London,
I would have thought that the many deeply buried Hezbollah underground caves in Lebanon that posed such an obstacle to the Israeli army could be another likely target. They, and the many missiles installed inside them, represent a direct threat to Israel both in the long and the short term. And ultimately to the rest of the Middle East.
Of course, they were built and equipped with help from Iran, so it may seem to be more or less the same thing after all.
Leif Jacobsen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Pakistan seems to harbour a greater threat.
S, Madrid,
the desire of genuinely liberal, free democratic people of the world to keep ourselves safe from the horror of wmd in the hands of rogue aggressive states and organizations is legitimate.
and the smug and condescending anti-war prejudice which would have us not bomb iranian nuclear facilities is irresponsible ultimately if it is not tethered to a genuine, substantive, effective, real-world solution about how to handle the explicitly and publicly expressed nefarious aims of the current iranian regime.
Will Mullen, san francisco, CA / USA
Its not a matter of if, its a matter of when? For Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon would be dangerous to regional powers in the Middle East and the world. With the power of a nuclear weapon Iran could proliferate if not strong arm other Muslim nations into radicalizing their philosophies towards Anti-Westernism and Anti- Semitism. So the questions remain, how far along are the Iranians from developing a weapon, and if there is an attack how will it affect the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However it turns out Its a scary thought ..
Will Chaple, Atlanta , Georgia
Re: the 1981 raid on the Iraqi "peaceful" nuclear reactor. The world didn't say anything to the French when they sold the product to Iraq and provided technicians to teach them how to run it. Nobody had a problem when it was discovered that a building was built that would turn used uranium into plutonium. It was only after every diplomatic effort was rejected that Israel HAD to take it out. Hussein would have wiped out that country. The world then wanted to punish Israel for their attack. It was discoved after the attack that, indeed, three bombs were to be constructed to hit Israel's main cities. Does anyone think that Iran's leader is any saner that Hussein was?
Carily W Myers, Bonneau, USA/SC
I don't see how air strikes would really succeed, as the Iranians will presumably try to rebuild their facilities in a large number of small installations scattered across their country, and it will be almost impossible for US intelligence to identify all of them. (Indeed, maybe the Iranians have already started?) It reminds me of the RAF bombing raids against the Nazi's guided missile projects, which succeeded in delaying the projects (just as airstrikes against Iran would also delay them), but failed to stop them - so in the end the Nazis got their V1s and V2s into action. So I do not see how airstrikes will produce a "clean house".
Chris, Manchester, UK
Maybe, the money is to be used to drop the bomb, which has not yet been shown to work, on targets, identified by US Intelligence, which has not yet been shown to work, to destroy the 200 Israeli nuclear bombs that , of course, have never been declared but do exist, in order to obviate the desire of anyone else in the Middle to develop nuclear weapons and to bolster US credibility, in the region. Of course, the credibility of US foreign policy doesn't exist either. The money being budgeted, of course, doesn't exist in the US government coffers. Aye, it's a tangled web they weave.
Howard Miners, West Palm Beach, Florida
A well reasoned and plausible senario.
Denver Watt, Osaka,
I feel a scary sense of deja vu, oh well, im sure it will all pan out ok in the end!
Kev, Cornwall, UK
i cannot believe the arrogance of the Americans. If they do bomb Iran, they will make the situation worse. No other country in history has bombed as many countries as the U.S. They claim to support freedom and democracy, but look what happened to the free and democratically elected Chilean President Aendi. Undermined by C.I.A. dirty tricks and then replaced by a Military Dictator. The sooner Bush goes, the better, and all his neo con cronies as well. Poor Cuba is now in Bushes sights for regime change. I suppose he would return it to the Mafia. The Americans are the biggest threat to world peace. Does China go bombing other states? Does Russia? All the countries critisised by the Americans are far for peaceable than the U.S. I only hope that the sycophants who supported the invasion of Iraq, do not fall for it this time.
Richard Moss, Sydney, Australia