Is the Bush Administration planning to nuke Iran?

[DulceDecorum]

US Secretly Deployed Nuclear Bombs In 27 Countries
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/

NSC 26 SERIES: PLANS FOR DENIAL OF MIDDLE EAST OIL RESOURCES TO HOSTILE COUNTRIES (Please note: some of the NSC 26 papers have been declassified but many significant documents on this topic remain classified)

Newly Declassified Material from the
Harry S. Truman Papers
Meeting 57-May 18, 1950
Memorandum from James Lay, Jr. to the NSC on NSC 26/2, May 9, 1950, with attachment on the removal and demolition of oil facilities and supplies in the Middle East
Meeting 65-August 17, 1950
Memorandum from Sidney Souers to the NSC, May 25, 1949 3
Memorandum from Sidney Souers to the NSC, June 21, 1949 16
Memorandum from James Lay, Jr. to the NSC, June 29, 1950, with NSC 26/3 8
Memorandum from James Lay, Jr. to the President, August 18, 1950 1
Memorandum from James Lay, Jr. to the NSC on NSC 26/3, August 14, 1950, with attachments 4
NSC 26/4: "Demolition and Abandonment of Oil Facilities and Fields in the Middle East," August 18, 1950 2
Memorandum from James Lay, Jr. to the NSC on NSC 26/2, September 1, 1950
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/declass.htm

Planning for the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East began in earnest in the early 1950s as military planners looked for ways to redress Soviet conventional military superiority around the world. In June 1950, the National Security Council issued a report (NSC 26/3) titled Demolition and Abandonment of Oil Facilities and Fields in the Middle East. The report addressed the possibility of plugging Saudi oil wells ". . .as a means of conservation and denial during enemy occupation." Nuclear weapons were looked at as a possible tool to deny the Soviets access to the oil fields. The report found, "Denial of wells by radiological means can be accomplished to prevent an enemy from utilizing the oil, but it could not prevent him from forcing ‘expendable' Arabs to enter the contaminated areas to open well heads and deplete the reservoirs. Therefore, aside from other ill effects on the Arab population, it is not considered that radiological means are practicable as a conservation measure."
<snip>

The NPR (Nuclear Posture Review released in January 2002) strongly implies a U.S. commitment to use nuclear weapons in the defense of Israel, stating that an "immediate contingency" that might lead to the use of nuclear weapons includes ". . .an Iraqi attack on Israel. . .." While such an attack clearly has been obviated with Saddam's removal, it stands to reason that the same logic would apply to a Syrian or Iranian attack on Israel. Both Syria and Iran maintain well-established WMD capabilities, and both maintain longstanding and overt hostility towards Israel. This chain of logic suggests that defending Israel from an attack by Syria or Iran is a core mission for the strategic deterrent.
<snip>

In applying the strategic arsenal to actual wartime use, the Bush administration repeats formulations from previous administrations reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in certain contingencies. As stated in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction: "The United States will continue to make clear it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including through resort to all our options – to the use of WMD against our forces abroad and friends and allies.
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol11/0409_russell.asp

[Kansas Wyatt]

1. Fox News was reporting last night...

That Iran was having a "nuclear war of words" with the United States.

The American people are being prepared and handled again.

[Ian David]

2. Bush will try and drag Israel and Iran into a nuclear confrontation

Bush believes he is The Antichrist and that he is fulfilling Biblical prophesy to trigger The War of the Apocalypse.

[chicagojoe]

3. A fuckin' psycho is what he is.

I always felt Iraq was the set-up for more invasions. Get the people used to it; try to build support from the American people.
The problem is, only half the people, at best, are behind this shit.
And, we're being misinformed, and straight out lied to by this administration. Rough times ahead.

[Just Me]

4. Yes. PNAC. They are prepared to incite a world war, too.

They are prepared to spend all their "political capital" (e.g. Americans' blood and treasure) so that they can "rule the new world order".

Scary, huh! :scared:

[Ian David]

5. Some of them think that this will make them rich and powerful

Here's how PNAC breaks-down

1) Some think it will make them rich and powerful.
2) Some think it will herald The End Times so they can be raptured sooner.
3) Some think it will herald The End Times so they can help Satan try and dominate the world.

I think the majority fall into that first category. They're being duped by the people in categories 2 and 3 who don't know the REAL motivation behind it.

The money, power and oil is just a smokescreen to divert attention from their real sick agenda, and it is a carrot to get those who are sane but greedy to play along with them.

I don't believe in all that bible and Satan stuff, but I know Bush and PNAC do. And you don't need God or Satan to destroy the world by following this roadmap to destruction.

How else can you explain the fact that nearly every single policy seems like it must have been intentionally catastrophic?

The simplest answer: it WAS INTENDED to be catastrophic!

Nobody can be SO wrong SO badly SO often ALL THE TIME by pure chance or by accident.

[DulceDecorum]

7. They are hellbound

on destroying America, that's for sure.
And their Mission is darn near Accomplished.

[DulceDecorum]

6. PNAC, Thomas Barnett, and what army?

The trouble with using weapons such as Depleted Uranium is that
YOUR OWN FORCES wind up dead.

In order to implement this new military vision," Barnett maintains that the U.S. military must move away from its often-competing mix of Air Force-Navy-Army-Marines toward two basic military services. One he names Leviathan, which he defines as the kick ass, wage war, special ops, and not under the purview of the international criminal court. Give us your angry, video game-playing 18-19 year olds, for the Leviathan force, Barnett says. Once a country is conquered by Leviathan, Barnett says the U.S. will have to have a second military force that he calls Systems Administration. This force he describes as the "proconsul" of the empire, boots on the ground, the police force to control the local populations. This group, Barnett says, "will never come home."
http://www.rense.com/general61/agemnda.htm

Sunday, April 11, 2004;
So who's going to stay with us through the tough times ahead? Here's a hint: If 10 well-placed bombs can flip a country's national election, that country probably isn't cut out for the job of waging a global war on terrorism.
A country also probably isn't cut out for the job if its society is generations past remembering what religious fervor feels like, if its military hasn't suffered significant (or any) combat losses since World War II, and if its government hasn't been accused of significant human rights violations in recent memory. Messy wars require allies who don't mind getting dirty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A769-2004Apr9¬Found=true

September 01, 2004
In short, Iraq can't ever really get "too bad" for the purposes of getting the rest of the Core to wake up to the real security challenges that lie ahead for us all. In some ways, the worst thing that could have happened would have been for the Iraq occupation by the U.S. military to have gone too well, because if it had, neither the changes needed within the Pentagon nor within what should become a Core-wide collective security system would have begun.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/000763.html

Thursday, 6 January, 2005
Reacting to the leaked memo, Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, told the Associated Press news agency: "By consistently underestimating the number of troops necessary for the successful occupation of Iraq, the administration has placed a tremendous burden on the Army Reserve and created this crisis."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4150749.stm

January 26, 2005
Pentagon Is Moving Ahead on Getting Ready for Next Occupation, but Who Else in Government Is Doing That?
Rumsfeld is moving the pile: he wants Special Ops Command to focus on killing terrorists (and he wants them to have their own dedicated intell units); he wants Civil Affairs out of SOCOM and back in the Army, which should focus a whole lot more on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction (something it is loathe to do); he wants the Army and Marines to do more mil-mil training, again freeing up SOCOM's trigger-pullers to focus on killing terrorists; and he want a general shift away from planning for conventional wars to a more balanced approach that highlights the need to be able to handle post-war foes like insurgencies.
This is why Rumsfeld needs to stay. He basically "gets" the challenge and the need for change, and he'll push the uniformed services to get it done.
....It ain't a grand strategy if only the Defense Department gets it.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001451.html

NO,
IT AIN'T A GRAND STRATEGY AT ALL.