Planning a Strike Against Iran

Despite Paul Rogers' bleak description of the dire geopolitical consequences of a military strike against Iran, the London Telegraph is reporting that top level government officials in Britian are holding secret meetings to discuss this very option. This, despite Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's claim that such action would be "inconceivable" in the current climate. Apparently, the term "inconceivable" carries a different, shall we say, nuanced, meaning for British officials than it might for average users of the English language. To such people, "inconceivable" can mean either not capable of being imagined or completely capable of being imagined, depending upon the official's needs at the time of utterance.

It should be obvious that the described meeting is simply an extension of the logical track that began when Bush called for regime change in Iran just a few weeks ago. Although, actually, this logical track was jumped on way back when the Bush administration first began rattling sabres about Iran those many months ago. And the Brits, once again, appear all too willing to play White House lapdog.

Here is some of the thinking being bandied about by General Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt. General Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Major General Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff:

Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran's air defence systems at the nuclear installations.

That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

An unnamed Foreign Office official says that, should Iran make another "strategic mistake," things will get ugly:

If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

It seems that Western leaders are fairly well driven toward this "inevitable" conclusion and nothing short of complete supplication by Iran will suffice to stave off these maniacs from using nukes to keep Iran from using nukes. It is what one might describe as an ironical "solution." Though these plans don't mention nukes, per se, don't be dissuaded that that option isn't also "on the table." Cheney and the Pentagon have been salivating about trying out a few of those toys for awhile now.

Solution, though, hardly seems the appropriate word. Such insanity will only escalate the mayhem in the Middle East and one cannot help but ask, just what on earth are these people really thinking?