An Open Letter to all elected officials and candidates seeking office - on advocating for the necessity of taking the nuclear option off the table in Iranian negotiations.

We have only once used the power of the atom bomb in the prosecution of a war: the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  It is now becoming generally understood by historians that this bombing may not have really been as necessary for a rapid conclusion of the war in the Pacific as it has been portrayed. 

I have no wish to revisit this controversy here. I think it is safe to say however that, up until now, the use of a nuclear bomb against a mostly civilian population is an act that no sane government official would ever consider repeating.  I say "up until now," because the Bush administration has been considering just such a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran.  

Outside of the peace movement, this decision to employ, or at least threaten to employ, nuclear weapons against Iran was greeted with apathy. 

Many in Congress regarded and continue to regard nukes as an essential bargaining chip that could give the US a decisive negotiating advantage with Iran. 

This position apparently prevailed within the Bush administration until April of this year when, according to a story by Seymour Hersh in the July issue of the New Yorker Magazine, the generals and the admirals headed by Peter Pace were able to convince Bush of the overwhelming strategic disadvantages of the employment of atomic bombs in Iran. 

It was not until then that Bush reluctantly yielded to the overwhelming evidence and decided to withdraw the nuclear bargaining chip from the negotiations. This evidence apparently contributed to the administration's renewed attempts to resume at least the appearance of negotiations. 

We, in what some have called the "reality based" community, have for years argued against nuclear weapons on both moral and strategic grounds.  

Note: The fact that depleted uranium ordinance has been widely deployed by the United States in Iraq is an issue that, when fully studied, will certainly serve to place this country on the short list of the most inhumane, criminal countries in human history.  Again, the American public and their representatives are blissfully unaware of this flaunting of international law and the dictates of civilized behavior.

In the final analysis, the argument against a first-strike nuclear attack has been born out, not by lily-livered liberals, but by the hardheaded, amoral strategic-thinkers at the Pentagon. Up to now, this capitulation on the part of Bush has been the best-kept secret of an administration known for its opacity.  Even now I have heard of no follow up to Hersh's revelations by anyone in the corporate media. 

Most Americans, as well as most of their elected officials and candidates, still believe that the nuclear option remains on the bargaining table.  This ignorance of the state of the nation and the world does not excuse the conduct of any official and bodes ill for democracy. 

It is time that each and every elected official, as well as those seeking office, should confront this new reality in the way the Bush administration has been forced to do.  

I am not arguing here from any moral position although a compelling argument can be made.  I am not arguing here from a PR position in terms of the impact that the second unleashing of the atomic bomb by an American president would have on would opinion although I think an even more compelling case can be made for this as well.  I am arguing strategically and politically.

The generals and admirals have told the Administration that a bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have no solid intelligence on even the existence of said targets. And there will be punishing consequences on the U.S. as a result of any attack on Iran.  In short, even in the event of another "mission accomplished" victory, it will be a Pyrrhic one that will eclipse even the victory in Iraq. 

Some of the salient reasons that the Pentagon used to convince the Bush Administration To abandon the idea of an all-out offensive of any kind against Iraq, not to mention a first-strike nuclear attack, are quoted here from the New Yorker article.

"They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States." 

"…the war planners are not sure what to hit. “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,”

"…attacking Iran would heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq."

"…an American bombing “would be seen not only as an attack on Shiites but as an attack on all Muslims."

“Much of Iran is akin to Afghanistan in terms of topography and flight mapping—a pretty tough target."

"…if we go down that road we have to be prepared to follow up with ground troops.”

“…the infrastructure to enable the (Iraqi) Guards to go after American aircraft carriers with suicide water bombers”—small vessels loaded with high explosives." is in place and will be virtually impossible to defend our carriers against.

“They (the Iraqis) have agents all over the Gulf, and the ability to strike at will.” 

And, perhaps most important, for the voracious oil-consumers, taxpayers and voters of America is the certainty that any attack on Iran will send oil prices well over the $150 a barrel price - that is if any Mideast oil will flow at all.  
 
I wish I could say that the President is a man of his word and will not find some backdoor means or some provocation like 9/11 as an excuse to break his agreement and nuke Iran. 

The overriding goal (obsession?) of the Bush administration has little to do with any perceived Iranian nuclear threat.  It is another illegal overthrow of the head of a foreign county.

All policy and tactics are subservient to this goal.  For now, all I am sure of is that Bush's position is - that the use of nuclear weapons in Iran is not on the negotiating table and is not being seriously considered for deployment. 

These conditions being true, I cannot see how any official or candidate in this country can possibly advocate for a first-strike nuclear option.  If you want to see how many of our representatives either still hold to a pro-nuclear position or refuse to comment about their stance on this matter, go to the website and see that the majority of congress have not even caught up to the President on this position.  This, quite frankly, is a scandal.  

Everyone who holds or seeks national office in this land is under obligation to read Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article and come out clearly and definitively against nuclear war. If, in the process, you become convinced that even the very idea of any military attack on Iran is madness, so much the better. It is an issue whose time has come. 

A simple "no comment" will no longer suffice.  We want your answer loud and clear so the voters can decide who is a sane, responsible human being, able to make moral, strategic and rational decisions about the conduct of the United States in the world and who is not.

We the people await your answer.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert Boldt
Jefferson City, MO

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments (1)

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4