The next war is almost here

Newt Gingrich is the latest conservative to warn of an upcoming nuclear strike by Iran against the United States. Newt, always a fan of cutting-edge technology, puts an intriguing spin on the now-standard propaganda line: He claims that Iran may use EMP weapons against us.

Gingrich pointed with alarm at a report first published in G2 Bulletin that Iran had tested the firing of ballistic missiles from a merchant ship in which warheads were detonated in midair over the Caspian Sea rather than at a land or sea target. National security experts and scientists commissioned by Congress to study the threat of electromagnetic pulse attacks on the U.S. concluded that Iran was preparing for just such a scenario.

Seems to me that this test -- if reported accurately -- probably was conducted with an eye toward defensive use in the Persian Gulf. Gingrich tries to convince his audience of the absurd proposition that Iran hopes to conquer the United States, but he presents not one shred of evidence in support of that notion. Neither does he present one shred of evidence that the Iranians are foolish enough to welcome the nuclear annihilation which would surely follow any attack on our teritory.

So why does Newt sound this alarm? I think public perceptions are being massaged.

In an important piece titled Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?, Jorge Hirsch argues -- as I have argued many times -- that war with Iran is not only imminent but will quickly go nuclear:

Why are nuclear weapons an indispensable part of the enterprise? Because conventional military action against Iran would be very costly and would likely lead to disaster. Iran has dozens of Shahab 3 missiles that can reach Israel and many more short-range missiles that can target U.S. forces in Iraq, potentially with chemical warheads. It also has a 7 million-strong Basiji volunteer militia and local support from the Shi'ite population in southern Iraq, all of which would easily overwhelm the 150,000 U.S. troops and the weak Iraqi army.

Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, a conventional aerial attack against Iranian installations (like Israel did to Osirak's reactor in 1981) would also have been futile. Iran's facilities are numerous, many are underground, and partial destruction would only have led to a radicalization of Iran's regime and a full-scale drive toward nuclear weapons.

However, to justify the breaking of the 60-year-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, it is necessary for the lives of many Americans to be at stake. Otherwise, the American public would not condone the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By placing U.S. forces within range of Iranian missiles and conventional forces, a situation has been created in which the American public will support the use of nuclear weapons to save thousands of American lives. This is why the invasion of Iraq was a necessary prelude to the nuclear attack on Iran.

I disagree only in part.

Iran has no motive to attack Americans in Iraq; we just installed a Shi'te-friendly government. I believe that the neocons will stage a large-scale "terrorist" event within the United States itself, which will be followed by allegedly "damning" intelligence pointing toward Iranian sponsorship. Nuclear war -- and the official end of democracy in America -- will follow.