Of course much was made of the supposed US planning that included the use of tactical nukes as bunker buster bombs to destroy their weapons program. Anyone with military planning experience, even on a fairly small level understands the "fishbone diagram" method of planning.
Using cause and effect scenarios that go from most likely to least likely, you end up with anything from diplomacy and minor saber rattling working to the idea of full scale fighting. And on the far right, under "least desirable", tactical nukes taking out enrichment and R&D facilities.
People who don't understand the military, planning, and the "how's and why's" are appalled to think that we'd be working on something like this. The one's suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" think this is the first administration to have DOD working on such plans.
The truth is since the Cold War we've had plans in binders somewhere for such conflicts with a number of countries. There is a group at the Pentagon who's sole purpose in life is to keep them up to date, based on our new weapons, technology, and force structures, and those of the folks the plans are designed to be used against.
William Arkin at the Washington Post has an interesting article in the paper today concerning such planning, and how it's been working since 2003. The truth is the plans go back farther than that, some probably as far back as the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. They were undoubtedly updated in the 1980's during the Iran Iraq war, and the tanker wars in the gulf when we provided escort ships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Arkin brings up an interesting subject near the end of his article, the lack of openness about this planning. He thinks we should be more forthright and admit it's going on. I think in different times we might actually do that, however it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
The Bush administration is to hamstrung by current critics to and "gotcha folks" to admit anything of the sort openly. Everyone saw the reaction to Seymour Hersh's accounts of the US planning, and it was nothing less than stunningly silly. The moonbat left went crazy, the media was full of stories about it, with little if any thought to the "why" end of it.
If folks with saner heads were more prevalent in the opposition to Bush, dropping hints about what we are planning would be a reasonable idea. Given that Iran has made sure to fill the airwaves over the last month with their newest weapons and war games it should have been expected. Except saner heads aren't prevailing in the US, the folks that are getting the most airtime are the folks with a bone to pick, so saying anything is tantamount to admitting that Bush wants to expand "Imperial America" even farther.
The not funny, but ironic thing is that these same folks will be wondering why we didn't prevent Iran from nuking Israel, or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz if and when either happens. Bush will then be an "ill prepared President" who didn't see the obvious.
Riehl World View and California Conservative both call out Diane Feinstein on her position on dealing with Iran.
Technorati Tags: Iran,politics, nuclear,mullahs ,war, strategic planning,Security, leadership, oil, George Bush