First strike against Iran

Reader Robert Boldt has some interesting thoughts on the looming conflict with Iran, and I thought I would share them with you. Before delving in, let my express some guarded (and uncharacteristic) optimism: I honestly thought we would be at war by now. Opposition by the brass seems to have enforced a small measure of sanity. Then again, if Bush is denied a first strike, neocon manipulators may feel obliged to stage a provocation.

Here's what Mr. Boldt has to say...

* * *

Seymour Hersh revealed last week that Bush repudiated his first strike option in Iranian negotiations three months ago.

I guess what most upsets me about this wonderfully unexpected turn of events is the way this announcement has been kept very quiet - ostensibly even by Hersh himself.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Some readers may be familiar with my struggles to ascertain Missouri Representative, Ike Skelton's position on nuking Iran - and my complete frustration in not even having had the courtesy of an appropriate response from him. Also my attempts to receive a slightly less than blood-thirsty response on the Iranian negotiations from my Democrat Senate candidate, Claire McCaskill, took me more than a few emails to finally get a reply from a staffer:

"At this time, Claire would be opposed to using nuclear force against Iran and, unless Iran presented a immanent threat to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies, Claire would not support using nuclear weapons in the future." And here's the kicker: "I think even the Bush administration realizes that using nuclear weapons would be a last resort and isn't seriously considering using nuclear weapons at this time."

Alex Skog, McCaskill's Media Corps

Such naïve, openhearted optimism about our president is so refreshing in today's cynical political scene.

Of course nothing on Claire's website would give you the slightest clue that this was actually her position:

"…they (Iranians) need to know our talks, if unsuccessful, will be followed not by rhetoric and reprisal, but by the FULL strength and force of the American military." (my emphasis)

Sounds the same as it did a month before my inquiry. In light of recent developments it seems candidate McCaskill is more of a warmonger than Bush himself. Don't they ever revise their boilerplate? Or is Claire sticking with a deliberately incorrect impression in a misguided attempt to appeal to the Red-Staters? This Blue-State Democrat is not impressed.

"If a tree falls in the forest…"

I think that when no one knows about an event - it might as well not have happened. Where the hell is the newspaper of note (NYT) on this - or the progressive blogs? An issue of this import and implication is certainly worth more than passing interest. In fact it changes the whole negotiating picture rather dramatically. How can anyone make any judgment about this issue as an informed media consumer absent this vital development?

As I said, any agreement, promise or policy statement Bush makes on this (or anything else) isn't worth a congressional bill after a signing statement. Everyone knows that. What we need to do is use Bush's agreement (to take the nukes off the Iranian negotiating table) as leverage to get others to go on the record against the nuclear option. We can now take this to the Republicans as well as embarrassing the wimpy dead-center Democrats. We need to use the fact that Bush has now taken the nuclear option off the table to try to leverage candidates and elected officials to make similar public pledges - never to employ nuclear weapons on a first strike basis. Even if it doesn’t work it could embarrass a whole lot of Republicans (and Democrats!)

You know and I know that Bush doesn’t mean a bit of what he says. But of course as with the courtiers of the naked emperor, no one, Republican or Democrat, would dare accuse Bush of insincerity or misleading the public. When Bush actually does decide to order the Iranian Holocaust, perhaps we might be able to stay, by a few moments, his malicious paw on the red button of destruction. Somewhere in the dim recesses of that simian brain an image might briefly pass - of all those Republicans lined up in support of his anti-nuke stand with large quantities of egg on their faces. The thought might just produce a trace of discomfort. These days this is the best we can hope for.

Here are some examples of ways this strategy might be employed:

Letter to a Republican or Democrat elected official

Dear _______,

As you may already know, this past April, President Bush agreed to take the nuclear option off the table in our negotiations with Iran.

(New Yorker Magazine, July, 2006 - The War Over Iran - Military doubts about a military solution. By Seymour M. Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/)

This unprecedented stand certainly holds the possibility of a far better world for ourselves and future generations. I have as yet failed to notice anything in your official communications that might reflect support for the President on this important issue.
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMING ME OF YOUR POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT ON TAKING THE NUCLEAR OPTION OFF THE NEGOTIATING TABLE WITH IRAN.

This humane commitment, I believe, transcends narrow partisan political considerations and re-establishes an important precedent that will make us and our children safer.

I eagerly await your response on this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

John Q. Taxpayer
Constituent

Letter To The Editor

(This applies to my constituency. Others can tailor it to suit theirs.)

Dear Editor,

Now that President Bush has finally taken the first strike nuclear option off the negotiating table with Iran, it is time to inquire as to how many of our elected officials support him in this principled stand.

"In late April (2006), the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium -enrichment plant at Natanz… This period is known to many in the Pentagon as 'the April Revolution'."

New Yorker Magazine, July 2006 - The War Over Iran - Military doubts about a military solution. By Seymour M. Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/

Many of our own elected officials, most notably Missouri Senators Bond and Talent as well as Representatives Hulshof, Akin, Blunt, Carnahan, Graves and Skelton are unwilling to stand with Bush on this issue. It has taken a great deal of courage and statesmanship on the part of our chief executive to refuse to be the second American president in history to visit the horrors of the atomic bomb upon another country in a time of war.

All citizens, supporters and critics of the president alike, should contact their representatives and demand that they publicly voice their support for our President on this vital issue.

John Q. Public

Loyal reader

Direct question to candidate at press conference and/or public forum.

Mr.______. Sir (or madam) Can you please tell us if you support President Bush in his position of taking the nuclear option off the negotiating table in dealing with Iran? And can you tell me if you might also know what is the position of your Party on this issue?

Note 1: Be sure to bring Seymour Hersh's article with the incriminating statement highlighted.

Note 2: Wouldn't you love to hear some "journalist" with a death wish, question Bush concerning this issue?