OMEN
04-09-2006, 08:35 PM
PLANS are under way for a massive US bombing strike on sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W. Bush leaves office in less than three years' time.
Both Mr Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney regard Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a new Hitler who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and carry out his fantasy of wiping Israel off the map.
Although they hope diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran will succeed, "it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors", a senior White House source said of the issue last week.
The Pentagon is believed to be considering options that would allow it to destroy facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz in a single night of bombing.
A leading neo-conservative, Richard Perle, said an attack on Iran could "be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question then would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation".
A story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine claims the Pentagon is also considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. The US refusal to rule out the nuclear option has reportedly led some officers to talk of resigning.
"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," Hersh quotes a Pentagon adviser as saying.
"This White House believes the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."
Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.
But military analysts believe that a strike with conventional weapons is much more likely. By 2008, a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 13,600kg behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 30m under the ground before exploding.
Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be available by 2008, providing Mr Bush with more attack options.
The Bush administration has been inviting military consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for advice.
The favoured scenario is an assault using a small number of attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The British would have to approve the use of the US military base there for an attack, and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air refuelling or sending surveillance aircraft, warships and submarines.
Senior Pentagon planners advised the White House recently they did not yet have accurate intelligence on the whereabouts of all Iran's nuclear enrichment sites and said several were buried under granite. At present an attack could hope to set back the Iranians' nuclear program by only two years.
US officials remain divided about the wisdom of a military strike. A senior White House source said opinion was in a "state of flux" and added: "We can bomb the sites, but what then?" It was important to plan for an escalation of the conflict, the source said.
White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.
One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners - 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the Government of Mr Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face dire military consequences.
The assumption that British forces would take part in an attack on Iran will be deeply embarrassing to the Blair Government. The Foreign Office has insisted a diplomatic solution is still possible.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, The Washington Post said yesterday no attack on Iran appeared likely in the short term, but officials were preparing for a strike as a possible option and using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of US intentions.
Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited air strike aimed at key nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets, the Post said.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is due in Iran on Wednesday to discuss Tehran's nuclear program. The IAEA's inspectors in Iran inspected the country's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz at the weekend.
The move comes after Mr Ahmadinejad restarted Iran's nuclear enrichment program, placing the country in breach of its international obligations and on a collision course with the West.
Seemingly emboldened by Washington's problems in Iraq, Mr Ahmadinejad continued his baiting of the West by staging ostentatious military exercises in the Gulf last week.
The hardware on display - missiles, torpedoes and rockets - may be no match for US weaponry, but it served as a warning of the disruption the Tehran regime could cause to the global economy by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor through which much of the Middle East's oil flows.
Revelling in the international spotlight and oblivious to his growing pariah status in the West, Mr Ahmadinejad will this week up the ante by hosting an international conference focused on Palestine and "the Holocaust myth".
The Sunday Times, Reuters, AFP
Both Mr Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney regard Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a new Hitler who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and carry out his fantasy of wiping Israel off the map.
Although they hope diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran will succeed, "it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors", a senior White House source said of the issue last week.
The Pentagon is believed to be considering options that would allow it to destroy facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz in a single night of bombing.
A leading neo-conservative, Richard Perle, said an attack on Iran could "be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question then would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation".
A story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine claims the Pentagon is also considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. The US refusal to rule out the nuclear option has reportedly led some officers to talk of resigning.
"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," Hersh quotes a Pentagon adviser as saying.
"This White House believes the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."
Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.
But military analysts believe that a strike with conventional weapons is much more likely. By 2008, a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 13,600kg behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 30m under the ground before exploding.
Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be available by 2008, providing Mr Bush with more attack options.
The Bush administration has been inviting military consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for advice.
The favoured scenario is an assault using a small number of attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The British would have to approve the use of the US military base there for an attack, and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air refuelling or sending surveillance aircraft, warships and submarines.
Senior Pentagon planners advised the White House recently they did not yet have accurate intelligence on the whereabouts of all Iran's nuclear enrichment sites and said several were buried under granite. At present an attack could hope to set back the Iranians' nuclear program by only two years.
US officials remain divided about the wisdom of a military strike. A senior White House source said opinion was in a "state of flux" and added: "We can bomb the sites, but what then?" It was important to plan for an escalation of the conflict, the source said.
White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.
One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners - 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the Government of Mr Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face dire military consequences.
The assumption that British forces would take part in an attack on Iran will be deeply embarrassing to the Blair Government. The Foreign Office has insisted a diplomatic solution is still possible.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, The Washington Post said yesterday no attack on Iran appeared likely in the short term, but officials were preparing for a strike as a possible option and using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of US intentions.
Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited air strike aimed at key nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets, the Post said.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is due in Iran on Wednesday to discuss Tehran's nuclear program. The IAEA's inspectors in Iran inspected the country's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz at the weekend.
The move comes after Mr Ahmadinejad restarted Iran's nuclear enrichment program, placing the country in breach of its international obligations and on a collision course with the West.
Seemingly emboldened by Washington's problems in Iraq, Mr Ahmadinejad continued his baiting of the West by staging ostentatious military exercises in the Gulf last week.
The hardware on display - missiles, torpedoes and rockets - may be no match for US weaponry, but it served as a warning of the disruption the Tehran regime could cause to the global economy by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor through which much of the Middle East's oil flows.
Revelling in the international spotlight and oblivious to his growing pariah status in the West, Mr Ahmadinejad will this week up the ante by hosting an international conference focused on Palestine and "the Holocaust myth".
The Sunday Times, Reuters, AFP