In a private circle, I had made the prevision that the United States of America would initiate a military action against Iran in 2005. Time proved I was a poor prophet. But, now, I wonder whether 2006 is time for celebration of my failure.
From voices usually well informed, we hear repeated stories that the President of the United States of America is ready for all solutions to be sure that Iran will not get nuclear power. In our language, this means that the use of tactical (only!) nuclear weapons is a possibility.
After all, why not? Like me, you are probably afraid just at thinking that a weapon that has not been used since 1945 could leave its heavily guarded silos with all the expected collateral damages of breaking such a powerful international military taboo dating back to WWII. Probably, your first reaction is to answer “G.W.Bush wouldn’t dare” ; But, unfortunately, wasn’t it what most people said in 2001, before the allied troups entered Iraq.
I wonder whether blindness, arrogance or hubris of the centers of US power will not lead to the actual use of the B61-11 bombs specialized in destruction of deep underground installations (up to 100m underground). What or who would go against Georges W. Bush will?
Moreover, American authorities explain us all that the greatest terrorist danger is now the future Iranian atom bomb. Don’t get me wrong. The war-preparation declarations of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are frightful for me too. But should we condone the “preventive” use of the archetypical weapon of mass destruction with the unlimited strategic consequences that would come from it, with the incredible fight between civilisations that some see (or want to see)?
So, do you want to “bet” that G. W. Bush will listen to his military staff (they are said not to favor such a dramatic option)?
Want some more?
- Attacking Iran: Are they nuts? on Salon.com
- THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? in the New Yorker