What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?

According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.  The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.  Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.  Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.  As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.  Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up?  Especially considering that several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites are in the middle of Tehran?  So does this mean we are going to nuke the capital of Iran?  And in this case would we parachute in exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial administration?  What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our decision?

I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11."  Can we get at least a bloody story out of this?  Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran is over my breathlessness threshold.  As if we needed another reason to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...

The current issue of TAC also includes a sharp article by Christopher Layne, arguing that, while failure is pretty much a fait accompli in Iraq, there's failure and then there's failure.  Getting out sooner, as Layne argues, would make failure less detrimental to America.

Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, TAC's a pretty interesting mag, particularly when compared to its intra-right-wing competition.  I mean, honestly, how much do we really need another Sufi partisan article by Stephen Schwartz or another "Aha!  NOW I've found The Connection!" article by Stephen Hayes?

Comments

[Pete Peteson]

Whats the difference between anti-war protestor spreading rumours of "Neocons will Nuke Iran" vs. pro-war yahoo's spreading rumours that "Saddam bought Yellow Uranium Cake"

Both sides are engaged in wrongful propaganda. Both sides need to just shut the hell up.

[Justin]

Well, one is presented as a factual truth when in fact it is untrue (the yellowcake rumor) and the other is presented as an open question, with a request that we determine whether it is true (the Iran plan). I have no idea whether the Giraldi claim is true or not, and made no claim about its accuracy.

Giraldi is a CIA veteran. I don't think it's entirely accurate to characterize him as an "antiwar protestor." It's absolutely possible that his sources are wrong. I certainly hope so.

[Boutros Bustani IV]

They are not going to touch Iran.They have just handed the future of Iraq over to proxies of Iran - thus dooming that country to decades more of suffering - and they knew what they were doing.Although they may not have guessed how horribly their invasion would turn out, they have read Bernard Lewis, they have long boosted Ambassador William H Sullivan's pro-Shi'ite Islamist assessment of 1979, they knew about the Iranian connections of their darling Ahmed Chalabi and most of their other favorites.There may have been those in the Bush administration who would have liked to try to impose a plan on Iraq which would have respected Iraq's modern history and preserved its integrity and secular government, but the realists and the neocons must have known that the US was opening Pandora's box, and under those circumstances only the more primitive political movements centered around religious seperatism, especially that controlled by the Shi'ite clerical hierarchy, would thrive.

[Njorl]

Is it at least a plan to respond to a terrorist attack from IRAN? Or do we not care? If we're hit by violent Bolivian environmental extremists, would we still hit Iran?

[Gogol]

A BAD JOKE? SINCE WHEN IS THE VICE-PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF POLICY OR IS HE THE REAL COMMADER IN CHIEF?

[Wolf DeVoon]

You're kidding, right? Billmon has been calling it the Cheney Administration a long time, because it's obvious that George Bush can't speak consecutive sentences unscripted.

[Will Wilkinson]

Just a thought... Would it be that bad for the Iranians to at least WORRY that we might seriously be committed to nuking them if they sponsored a terrorist attack?

[Justin]

Will:

Absolutely not. In fact, I think there ought to be no confusion about our having a very short fuse when it comes to such matters.

At the same time, I think it is highly unlikely that Iran is somehow confused, and would believe that we would be willing to absorb an Iranian-sponsored 9/11 and not respond in a rather "robust" fashion.

I do think that drafting plans to nuke Tehran - if this report is correct - without evidence of "Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States" is a very bad idea. That comports with my view that it was a bad idea to attack Iraq without any evidence that it was involved in an act of terrorism against the United States. At least according to everyone this side of Laurie Mylroie. (Putting aside the rather odd argument about Leon Klinghoffer.)

[daryan]

In support of the above plan of attack see this article by Micheal Klare; http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0722-20.htm

It's also about making preparations for attacking Iran. You can check out my blog for more info also: http://iransazi.blogspot.com/

[tommy]

Iran will win beause China, Russia and India are all fed up with US Mickey Mouse war crime in their back yards. They will rise up and stomp on the US like a bug. I agree 100% with them because the US has already gone broke under stupid cretin Bush. THE USA IS ALREADY IN ECONOMIC RUINS LIVING OFF OF PHONY FIAT MONEY BACKED BY LOTS OF VERY THIN, VERY HOT AIR AND NOTHING AT ALL ELSE.

[InsideTheAsylum]

This is just a plan. That's all.
I'm sure the pentagon has the following plans on file.
+ Ts the plan if there's another presidential sex scandal.
+ The plan if the white house bathroom over floods.
+ The plan if aliens invade.
+ The plan to invade canada.
+ The plan to brainwash the population.
+ The plan to nuke iran.
+ The plan to end world hunger.
+ The plan to do a lot of things.

All they're doing is covering their asses in the future so that if in case another 9/11 attack occurs, the media and the populace won't shaft them complaining that they did nothing! On the other hand, if another attack like that occurs, they'll just say "We followed protocol."

[Steve]

Isn't this whole War Against Terror bad enuff without rubbish like this actical stirring up more trouble

[HP]

Why is it always taken for granted that the US or Israel will simply bomb or nuke Iran? Why haven't they already bombed the nuclear facilities in Iran? Is it perhaps because they can't? Or the losses incurred would be unacceptable? Losses like all our ships in the Persian gulf, all the troops in Iraq and perhaps 90% of all aircraft involved and even Israel itself destroyed? Not to mention blocking the Persian Gulf oil flow which would impact upon the economics of many nations, very quickly. The Iranians possess supersonic cruise missiles and the S-300 anti aircraft/anti missile system. A system which actually works, is deadly effective.

[TWF]

This is really nothng new. Cheney was in command on 9/11, he chaired the Iraq working group and now he is ordering up plans for nuking Iran. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

What caused my eyes to pop out of my head was that these plans are in case of another terrorist event in the U.S.

That is what it would take now, for the American people not to have a flying hissy fit about turning yet another country into middle ages rubble, and recruiting even more fanatics for the CIA built Al Qeada.

It would also take the focus off Rove, for good. Two birds with one stone?

I say if there is another terrorist attack in this country, there won't be enough torches and pitch forks at all the Home Depots in the land. At least, I hope there won't be, becaue I have had it up to my eyeballs with this bunch of lying traitors and the giggling murder-monkey and frog bomber, himeself, the Preznit.

It is time for them to come down and be sent up...the river!

[brian]

I suppose this sounds possible because US Foreign policy has now gone beyond satire. Talk about" Wag the Dog "! Many people have no trouble in seeing the USA as a rogue state along with its little ally(or is it master?) Israel,whose presence is a major cause of many of the disasterS that have afflicted the Middle Eas in the last 50 odd years !

[brian]

I suppose this sounds possible because US Foreign policy has now gone beyond satire. Talk about" Wag the Dog "! Many people have no trouble in seeing the USA as a rogue state along with its little ally(or is it master?) Israel,whose presence is a major cause of many of the disasterS that have afflicted the Middle Eas in the last 50 odd years !

[Kil]

I'm sure you wrote this to get a feel for how we would react to the idea of a strike on Iran. To your schzoid mind I'm sure you would report something like; "Wow! folks don't like the nuke option, but didn't object to creaming Iran....."
Bush and Cheney don't have enough time left in office to cover this one - and if they do it - just park Cheney on the missile head before you fire it. Kil

[wwoolsey@comcast.net]

Certainly there are elements of the Bush administration who believe that the U.S. should prevent Iran for having a nuclear capacity and that military force will probably be necessary.

Given the fact that the U.S. military is tied up in Iraq, maybe air attacks are necessary. Nuclear is necessary to get protected sites.

Now, when should this actually be done? After Iran says something intransigent at some negotiation with the Europeans? When information comes out about Iranian progress towards nuclear weapons? When the U.S. has been subjected to a terrorist attack by Iran? When the U.S. has been subjected to a terrorist attack that can be blamed on Iran? When the U.S. has been subjected to a terrorist attack that cannot plausibly be blamed on Iran?

Why would the defense department be doing this planning for the Vice President? Wouldn't it be more likely that the VP asked about existing plans? Rumsfield says we don't have anything up-to-date. We need to fix it.

Also, would the peon planners really be told about the scenarios when this might be done? Isn't it more likely that if they started asking about the political problems with a bolt from the blue, the terrorism scenario is mentioned. And that whether Iran is likely to commmit such terrorism is irrelevant.

[Patrick]

When the folks figure out that nuking the planet has been the plan from the beginning, April 1947, they will be able to see that nuking Iran is merely a way to get the genocide underway.

They, our war criminal class, are under pressure to get Armeggedon underway, otherwise they may all be placed in front of tribunals. They had already planned to kill us all, rather than allow a just world to arrive.

Nuclear weapons and the plans to use them explain why there has been an intervention by higher level unknown powers.Our war criminal leadership is made up of genocidal cannibals. If they can't eat us, then our destruction was their only option.

They have repeatedly pulled the nuclear pin on us, we remain alive due to a "Divine Intervention," these the words that Airforce General Grant used to explain why we have not been destroyed yet in a nuclear war. There is only a few million nuclear war criminal profiteers that threaten 6 billion of us. We need to remain serious about dealing with them and their plans to destoy us.

http://politicsofet.com

[Wyatt Kaldenberg]

A general in mainland China just said that Red China would use nukes against the U.S. over Hong Kong. I wonder is this just a third grade way Bush has of telling the Communists to back off.
It's like the playground bullies control the nukes and no one cares.

[lyn]

so with the nuclear terror drill in SC and Virginia in the next two weeks... anyone wanna wager Iran...

[afafsdsdaadfasdf]

tommy is teh playa, coz eh can WRITE ALL CAPS!

wanker.

[jay denari]

While I wouldn't put such planning beyond the Bush crew, I also doubt they'd be so stupid as to attempt it. Of course, if they believed Iran was provoking us (regardless of the truth), they'd probably feel compelled to attack them that way simply b/c we don't have enough uncommitted troops to do so any other way.

If that were to happen, the world should condemn our government for using nukes and immediately initiate war crimes trials (if we don't so it first). Using such weapons ARE crimes against humanity.

Wyatt: A Chinese general (not necessarily speaking for his govt) threatened nukes over TAIWAN, not Hong Kong. They already own HK.

Patrick: Aliens?!? I hope you're not serious. They aren't aliens; they're seriously disturbed but very human people causing these problems &/or making $$$ off them. My concern is that their profiteering is being fed by the armageddon meme in our society's main religions -- that, by believing society has to end in holocaust so they can personally be "saved" (they don't give a damn about anyone else), they'll semi-consciously make it happen... and be grossly surprised if they survive.

[jay denari]

Sorry, Patrick, I misunderstood you. But I don't believe "ET" has had anything to do with preventing nuke war either. Our own intelligence and desire to live is responsible for that, with some luck. I just hope our luck isn't running out...

[Ali]

As an Iranian reading this, I really do hope the US drops a tactical nuke on our Natanz enrichment facility (probably the only hardened nuclear installation in the country, which by the way is under full IAEA safeguards and 24/7 monitoring).

Why?

First, our casualties will be minimal. The facility is currently not operational.

Second, we will pay with loss of some personnel and some material, but we will gain a thousand fold from our action immediately following such an attack: We will leave the NPT. We will then initiate a full-blown nuclear WEAPON program (not a nuclear POWER program like what we have now), and hopefully within 12-18 months, we will have the bomb.

Third, such an unprovoked and unjustified NUCLEAR attack against a NON-NUCLEAR-WEAPON country, will prove once and for all that in international relations today, it is the US which deserves the ROGUE label.

It's a win-win situation for us.