What's New

Previous Events

February Current Events

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

This startling headline appeared in The Sunday Times on January 7. The story goes:

“ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.”

At one point in the article, the author points out that Pentagon insiders say the US would not likely approve such an attack in advance, so Israel would have to seek approval after the fact, as it did after its attack on a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. However, the article ends with:

“Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: ‘The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.’”

By 6:16 PM on Sunday, Associated Press writer David Stringer had published Israel’s denial that it has any such plans. So who are we to believe? The view I have heard from most of my Iranian contacts, and all the Iranians I have seen on TV, is that the US will never attack Iran. “No one would be that stupid,” seems to be conventional wisdom over there. On the other hand, John Doraemi of Al-Jazeerah, in an article published January 9, 2007, predicts The Coming Big Bush "Sacrifice" Gambit as follows:

In chess, it is sometimes preferable to sacrifice a high value piece, your queen, bishop, rook or knight, in order to manipulate your opponent into giving up a desired slice of real estate.

Pay close attention to Bush's new strategy, and to his repeated mention of the word "sacrifice", for it may hold the key to understanding what is about to unfold.

A real-world chess "sacrifice" gambit could go something like this.

  1. US forces attack the Shi'i militias in Baghdad.
  2. The Shi'is throughout Iraq retaliate and cut off US supply lines.
  3. The US army is overrun in many places suffering huge and catastrophic casualties (the "sacrifice").
  4. This stunning defeat causes another "helpful wave of indignation" across the "homeland," preordaining a new US response.
  5. The US regime will reinstate the draft, and it will use nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iran, who will be linked to the Shi'is of Iraq, and thus provide the pretext for this next all-out war

This article is, of course, pure speculation, but what about the one William Thomas, published January 19 at www.willthomas.net exclusive?

Israeli Nuclear Strike On Iran Turned Back By USAF

“A recent strike by nuclear-armed Israeli Air Force fighter-bombers bound for targets in Iran was turned back after being intercepted by U.S. fighters over Iraq, this reporter has learned.

Two sources have independently confirmed the encounter, which took place on January 7, 2007. Though the first informant offered few details beyond an initial tip, a second source long-known by this reporter to have well-placed U.S. and "non-U.S." military and government contacts provided specific information regarding the raid, which was aimed at the radical religious ayatollahs holding ultimate power in Iran.

Israeli nuclear strikes are not unprecedented. Soon after Desert Storm, U.S. Navy pilots told this reporter in Kuwait how in late 1990 Israel made good on its pledge to respond in kind to WMD attacks by launching nuclear-armed aircraft against Baghdad following a lethal assault on Tel Aviv by Scud missiles tipped with chemical warheads. That air strike was called off when the Americans refused to provide the vital IFF codes needed to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace.”

Can this be true? It has been vociferously attacked by some in the disarmament community who point out that William Thomas has a history of publishing highly dubious “facts.” Still, this kind of chatter is escalating, even in the mainstream media. A third aircraft carrier group has been sent to the Persian Gulf. Some unknown military sources are reporting that many of the “most deadly bombs in Iraq are coming from Iran.” On February 12, President Bush was asked by a reporter to deny that he had plans to attack Iran, and he failed to do so. He did call such speculation “noise” and “political,” but he did not specifically say that he would not bomb Iran.

The March 2007 issue of Vanity Fair includes a long article by respected journalist Craig Unger describing who, why and how the neocons in and around the Bush administration intend to attack Iran. In this article he notes that Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

“…went as far as to suggest that the U.S. consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. ‘One military option is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which may have the capability to destroy hardened deeply buried targets. That is, bunker-busting bombs could destroy tunnels and other underground facilities.’ He granted that the Non-Proliferation Treaty bans the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, such as Iran, but added that ‘the United States has sold Israel bunker-busting bombs, which keeps the military option on the table.’ In other words, the U.S. can't nuke Iran, but Israel, which never signed the treaty and maintains an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, can.”

This is further evidence that, as I have noted repeatedly in this column, certain powerful people are pushing to use nuclear weapons in Iran. On the other hand, even as I write (on February 13) I am listening to All Things Considered report that North Korea has agreed to shut down its main reactor in exchange for $300 million worth of fuel aid. Can this be true? It seems so civilized. For $300 million we could make friends with lots of people, even in the Middle East. Of course, John Bolton opposes the deal. Bolton and the other neocon would-be masters of the universe don’t like using carrots. They like using sticks. And that is what makes the situation in Iran so frightening. At this point, I usually ask you to “stay tuned.” This month, I ask instead that you pray. Pray that the US does not bomb Iran, and if the warmongers get their way and a bombing does take place, please pray that it does not involve the use of a nuclear weapon.