- The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran
with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe
they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
- The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But
there are no troops to send.
- Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe
does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake
of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled
over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
- The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated.
Indeed, it never existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with
bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet
ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes
on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition."
Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you
are with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go
back to the Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but
Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan,
stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the
Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case."
- That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American
television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can
no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise U.S.
hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the
wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated
with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: "One
has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's
what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush's "ludicrous"
demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the
U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression
- Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat
by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S.
and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of
control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi
Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest
over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous
levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think
that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands
that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.
- Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can
only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is
that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover,
an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed
U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
- Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have
intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not
dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq,
or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
- Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike
on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist
America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would
realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude
of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
- Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or
low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage"
or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the
enemy. The "fear factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the
- University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority
on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit
of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China,
form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack
on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan's sycophantic relationship
to the U.S.
- There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use
of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised
and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
- Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only
more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one
can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule
by force alone.
- Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to
the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian
neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the
immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is
possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there
is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear
weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
- It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control
of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.
- Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political
Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former
associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor
for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
- Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate