“Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly dangerous for world peace,” President Bush declared on Monday, June 9 during his meetings with European Union (EU) leaders. “And so we’ve got to continue to work together to make it clear, abundantly clear to them, that it’s their choice to make: They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with all of us if they verifiably suspend their enrichment program.”
Two days later Bush repeated the possibility of military attacks against Iran, while stating, “I very clearly pin my hopes on diplomatic efforts.” He called diplomatic efforts “my first choice” three times, but also said, “we’ll give diplomacy a chance to work.” Once again he said, “All options are on the table” concerning deterring Iran from its presumed nuclear weapons’ ambitions.
According to National Public Radio’s (NPR) website, Bush is trying to “forge a consensus with Britain, Germany and France on Iran with a carrot-and-stick strategy — a package of new penalties and incentives aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Before the March 2003 Bush tried to “forge a consensus” with the same nations about Iraq.
Last month the Israeli Army Radio reported that a Bush administration official made remarks about intending to attack Iran before he left office. According to the Jerusalem Post the Army Radio “quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush…had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.”
The Bush administration denied the reports, and issued a statement that said the U.S. “remains opposed to Iran’s ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon. To that end, we are working to bring tough diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior and to halt their uranium enrichment program.”
In April the Bush administration claimed Iran smuggled weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. On April 25 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said that a briefing would be given by General Petraeus “in the next couple of weeks” which would provide evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government announced they would conduct their own investigation. Ali al-Dabbagh, al-Maliki’s spokesman, said, “We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation.”
Inter Press Service (IPS) journalist Gareth Porter reported on May 21 that “U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence that would support that claim, and a long-delayed U.S. military report on Iranian arms is unlikely to offer any data on what proportion of the weapons in the hands of Shiite fighters are from Iran and what proportion comes from purchases on the open market.”
Porter cited Maj. Kevin Bergner’s response when asked about the allegations at a briefing on May 8 was to dodge the question and state that the U.S. military “could not do what they’re doing without the support of foreign support [sic].”
Porter also pointed out that by looking at weapons caches found in Iraq the past 15 months (as of May) reveals that the Mahdi Army relies on four types of weapons: 60mm and 120mm mortars, 107mm rocket, and 57mm anti-tank missile. “Those are essentially the same mortars and rockets that have turned up in al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent weapons caches, suggesting that both groups have obtained their heavier weapons from the international arms market,” Porter stated.
In April 2007 a U.S. explosives expert, Major Marty Weber, said that the majority of 107mm rockets discovered in Iraq were made in China.
Muhammad Cohen, Asia Times journalist, reported that the Bush administration plans to launch airstrikes against Iran” within the next two months,” according to “an informed source.” The source was a “US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community.”
According to the source “two key U.S. senators brief on the attacked planned to go public with their opposition to the move…but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.” The strike, the source told Asia Times, would be against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
“An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration’s declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that ‘all options remain on the table,’” Cohen stated in his article.
Congressional members respond
House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) sent a letter to fellow Congressional members in May asking them to co-sign a letter to Bush that threatens impeachment if Iran is attacked. The website AfterDownStreet.org published the letter:
May 8, 2008
Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress’ Exclusive Power to Declare War
Dear Democratic Colleague:
As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution’s framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden’s statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so.
I hope that you will join me in calling on the President to respect Congress’ exclusive power to declare war. To sign the letter below, please contact the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-3951.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
In May the group Just Foreign Policy held a forum titled “The Folly of Attacking Iran” to encourage negotiations with Iran instead of military attacks. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) spoke at the forum. “[President Bush] wants to find a way to provoke a military confrontation, or gin up some data to frighten the American people into believing a preemptive strike is defensible,” McDermott said.
“It really is a question of whether we will learn the lessons of history or whether we will repeat them,” McDermott added.
Popularity: 24% [?]
