What's New

Previous Events

Current Events for March

In past columns I devoted several kilobytes of print to the Divine Strake test. As you may recall, this was to have been a 700-ton explosion in the Nevada Test Site that, according to many reliable sources, was designed to test the effects of a small nuclear explosion on hardened bunkers in Iran. Well, thanks to the Shoshone Indians, some downwinders in Nevada, the governor of Utah, and tens of thousands of grassroots protesters, this test has been cancelled.

According to its own February 22 news release:

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has decided to cancel the proposed Divine Strake experiment. “I have become convinced that it’s time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test,” said DTRA Director Dr. James A. Tegnelia. This decision was not based on any technical information that indicates the test would produce harm to workers, the general public, or the environment.

Divine Strake was a scientific experiment designed to significantly advance the nation’s ability to defeat underground facilities that produce and store weapons of mass destruction. The experiment would have entailed detonating a large amount of a common blasting agent over an existing tunnel at the Nevada Test Site. It was to be the largest in a series of experiments that relied on the specific geology at that location.

DTRA will attempt to develop alternative scientific means for obtaining the important data that this experiment would have provided. Such methods to assess capabilities to defeat underground facilities do not currently exist. The agency will develop advanced analysis techniques and conduct confirmatory experiments at a much smaller scale to assist in developing new capabilities to defeat underground facilities.

There is a national consensus on the need to improve conventional capabilities to defeat underground targets that pose a threat to the United States. “DTRA remains committed to help develop non-nuclear means to defeat underground targets. I am optimistic that we will succeed,” said Tegnelia.

Jacqueline Cabasso of Western States Legal Foundation and a leading anti-nuclear expert distributed the above release with the comment, “One small victory for our side! This cancellation is almost certainly a result of local and regional grassroots actions. But we must remain vigilant. You will notice that the Defense Reduction Agency is not canceling the program, just the method.”

To me, the most exciting sentence in the press release is, “There is a national consensus on the need to improve conventional capabilities to defeat underground targets that pose a threat to the United States.” Taken at face value, this would seem to imply that the nation is looking for conventional capabilities because we don’t want to use our nuclear capabilities. But can we take this at face value?

Tim Rinne in an article in the Lincoln Journal Star (Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007) informs us that:

In an unprecedented collaboration, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law and U.S. Strategic Command are hosting a “Space and Telecom Law Conference” in Lincoln on March 2. StratCom Commander and Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright will deliver the opening speech at this event, slated to address the military, commercial and tourism dimensions of “Security and Risk Management in a New Space Era.”

But here’s what he probably won’t be telling this law school audience. That StratCom — at the behest of the Bush/Cheney Administration — has already devised plans for a pre-emptive (and, under international law, illegal) attack on Iran. As the March 2007 issue of Vanity Fair reports,

“Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran… ‘Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran],’ says [retired Col. W. Patrick Lang, who served as an officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency].”

Imagine for a moment how this must look to the Muslim world …

The command center for the largest nuclear arsenal in the world has been charged with planning, launching and coordinating an unprovoked assault on a non-nuclear Muslim nation, in order to keep that country from even being able to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. StratCom’s attack plan even includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons to take out the reinforced bunkers housing Iran’s nuclear research facilities.

The Islamic broadcast network, Al Jazeera, could have a field day with this sort of ‘double standard’…

This information, in combination with the comment by Doug Bruder, head of the Counter-Weapons of Mass Destruction program for the Defense Department, which I have quoted previously in this column (“There are some very hard targets out there that right now it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to defeat with current conventional weapons. Therefore there are some that would probably require nuclear weapons.”), leaves little doubt that Sratcom has plans for using nuclear weapons in Iran.

However, just because the plans have been prepared does not mean they will be carried out. The Divine Strake test was cancelled. The nuclear bunker-busting of Iran can also be cancelled. But Divine Strake was opposed by the Shoshone, downwinders, and the state of Utah. Who is going to bat for the Iranians?

According to David Espo and Matthew Lee, writing on March 13 for the Associated Press:

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran….

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

It doesn’t sound like we can count on the Democrats. Representative Ackerman appears comfortable with the idea of bombing Iran to “modify their behavior,” even though the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no evidence that Iran is doing anything but developing nuclear energy, which is perfectly legal. Representative Berkley appears quite comfortable using the threat of bombing as a negotiating tool and trusting President Bush’s judgment to use that tool judiciously. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and all the other Democratic presidential hopefuls except Kucinich are indistinguishable from President Bush in their determination to “keep all the options on the table” when it comes to making sure Iran is not allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

On the other hand, we can see from the AP article that many Democrats must be quite nervous about the possibility of bombing Iran, which is why they added the Iran-related proposal in the first place. The DTRA press release assures us of a “national consensus” against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the Democrats (and surely the Republicans as well) must at least be deeply divided on this issue. That indecision means this is a great time for our American readers to call your representatives and let them know how you feel about the threatened bombing, especially the nuclear bombing, of Iran. We stopped the Divine Strake test. Can we stop the bombing of Iran? Can we stop the use of nuclear weapons in Iran? That’s up to us.