April 10, 2006

Just in case you've gotten the impression that the Bush administration isn't seriously considering a military strike against Iran using both conventional and nuclear weapons, see the Amercan Progress Action Fund's 4-10-06 Progress Report, "The Nuclear Option." You can read it below or at: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newslette
r2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053

On the brighter side, there are limits to the U.S. military's loyalty to Mr. Bush, and high-ranking American military officers have stated that they are adamantly opposed to the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons (i.e., so-called "mini-nukes"). Moreover, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has publicly stated that the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran is "completely nuts."

Additionally, the Bush administration has only presented alarmist rhetoric, whereas they haven't presented any credible evidence. Hence, American politicians and journalists should be openly questioning the reliability of the intelligence behind the Bushites' allegations that: (1) a "nuclear crisis" exists vis-à-vis Iran; (b) Tehran is actively seeking a "nuclear weapons program"; and (c) Iran is somehow capable of "posing an imminent threat" to the USA and the UK with its non-existent phantom nukes.

Finally, we should be deeply skeptical about the legitimacy of the Bush administration's casus belli, because: (a) we know that the war-profiteering neocons prefer their illegal "Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War" to the civilized pursuit of diplomatic and juridical solutions; (b) we have every reason to believe that a conventional aerial strike against Iran would quickly escalate into a regional war with global terrorist blowback; and (c) their plan for a nuclear strike against Iran is "completely nuts," insofar as it would be both a monstrous war crime and a humanitarian disaster of the first magnitude.

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.is Executive Director American Center for International Law ("ACIL")