In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes that the Bush Administration is intent on bombing Iran to stop them from acquiring nukes and would use tactical nuclear weapons, if necessary. An article in the Sunday Times concurs that the Administration is prepared to act:
The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “?It’s not in their nature,” he said.
White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left Al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.
But the Times article plays down the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons would be used in air strikes:
The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.
Without knowing who the anonymous sources are, it’s hard to judge how accurate either account is. It makes sense to me that the Bush Administration would at least consider the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons if that is the only way to demolish Iran’s deep, underground facilities. Or, perhaps the Bush Administration is intentionally leaking to Hersh to float the idea. It can only help the diplomatic process if the Iranians are convinced that Bush may actually use nukes against them in 2008, when he has nothing to lose politically.
But those of you who have strong opinions on the matter can put your money where your mouth is. At Tradesports the odds are less than 4-1 that the U.S. or Israel will carry out an air strike against Iran by March 2007.