Will George Bush Nuke Iran?

A George Bush nuclear strike on Iran is thinkable, if reprehensible, morally abhorrent and politically suicidal.

How likely is it that George Bush will use nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran designed to destroy their nuclear capacity? In the old days it was called a first strike. Today, we might call it preemptive nuclear war.

One the surface, it might seem unthinkable. If we examine history, however, it seems less so.

For example, as Robert Pisor points out in The End of the Line, a book about the battle of Khe Sanh, General Westmoreland was planning for their possible use in Vietnam. Khe Sanh was relatively isolated and unpopulated by civilians, so dropping a big one seemed acceptable, at least to the fanatics who came up with the idea. Ultimately, the White House put the nix on those plans.

Will our current White House do the same? I have some doubts.

First, we have to accept the assumption that Bush wants to use the military against Iran. That is an arguable proposition, but I am assuming he wants to get rid of Iran's nuclear program, and he faces a deadline, the next election. We think we have perhaps a decade to solve this, but he wants to be the President who solves the problem-hence, deadline next election.

Second, he knows that our military is stretched to the limit. If Bush can't maintain a surge in Iraq, where will he get the extra troops for an invasion of Iran? He won't be able to. The troops are not available, and nobody will accept a draft. Just as the West was willing to compensate for low troop levels against the Soviets by planning to use nuclear weapons, Bush could resort to the bigger bang for the buck and hit them with nukes.

Third, a conventional air strike might have trouble destroying the entire nuclear infrastructure of Iran. Nuclear weapons might do the trick. Apparently the Pentagon has a bunker busting bomb called the B-61-11, which might have been upgraded to nuclear. If so, they have adapted the tools for the job.

Fourth, there is the moral question. Many of us would view the use of nuclear weapons on Iran as reprehensible, especially if there is time to use other options before Iran develops its weapon. If we do have ten years, shouldn't we beef up our military so we can take them out with conventional weapons, use economic and diplomatic and financial and moral pressure, use the UN, gather our allies? Yes. But, using George Bush's logic, it is morally reprehensible NOT to hit them with nukes if there is the smallest chance that they will hit us with nukes. And remember he's foregone all of the other non-war options before.

Finally, politically, a move like this seems suicidal. Our standing in the world would break through the rock bottom. But when, in the past, has Bush particularly cared what the world thinks?

I am not arguing that this will happen. I hope that it does not. It seems to me, though, that we must be aware that it is a real possibility, and fight against it.