US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
New York Times report: Report Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril

Report Backs Iraq Strike and Cites Iran Peril

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 15 — An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States.

The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," a near final draft of the document says. But it carefully avoids spelling out what steps the United States might take if diplomacy fails, and it makes no such direct threat of confrontation with North Korea, which boasts that it has already developed nuclear weapons.

When asked about the omission in an interview today, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser and the principal author of the new report, said "the sentence applies to both Iran and North Korea."

The 48-page draft of the new "National Security Strategy of the United States," which was released by the White House before a formal presentation by Mr. Hadley on Thursday, is an effort to both expand on and assess the security strategy published by the administration in September 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon upended American foreign policy.

But in a reflection of new challenges, the document also covers territory that the first strategy sidestepped, warning China, for example, against "old ways of thinking and acting" in its competition for energy resources.

China's leaders, it says, are "expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up — as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era."

No such discussion appears in the earlier version of the strategy, and Mr. Hadley said the warning was an effort to get China's leaders to think about "the broader constellation" of their interests.

In a reflection of growing tensions between Washington and Moscow, the administration also expresses deep worry that Russia is falling off the path to democracy that Mr. Bush spent much of his first term celebrating.

"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," the document reads. In a much tougher tone than the 2002 document, it emphasizes that the future of the relationship with Russia "will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts."

Mr. Hadley, who was the deputy to Condoleezza Rice, who was the national security adviser when the 2002 document was produced, said the effort was not intended to formulate new strategy, but to "take stock of what has been accomplished and describe the new challenges we face."

He noted, for example, that dealing with economic globalization — a subject the administration rarely talked about directly until recently — constituted a new chapter, and that in other areas "we've learned something over the past four years."

But chief among the sections that remain unchanged is the most controversial section of the 2002 strategy: the elevation of pre-emptive strikes to a central part of United States strategy.

"The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue W.M.D. at their own peril," the strategy says. It acknowledges misjudgments about Iraq's weapons program that preceded the invasion three years ago, but it is clearly unwilling to give ground on that decision. The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."

While the new document hews to many of the administration's familiar themes, it contains changes that seem born of bitter experience. Throughout the document there is talk of the need for "effective democracies," a code phrase, some of its drafters said, for countries that do not just hold free elections but also build democratic institutions and spread their benefits to their populations. "I don't think there was as much of an appreciation of the need for that in 2002," one senior official said.

The new document is also less ideological in tone, and far more country-specific. Syria, for example, received no mention in the older document, but it is cited as a sponsor of terrorism in this one.

Mr. Hadley and other officials said that in using the word "confrontation" the administration did not intend to signal a greater willingness to use military force against Iran's nuclear production sites. But it did indicate a willingness to step up pressure against Iranian leaders, including the threat of penalties that the United States is pressing in the United Nations Security Council.

Even as the White House edited the final drafts of the strategy, the House International Relations Committee voted 37 to 3 for legislation to end American economic aid to any country that invests in Iran's energy sector. The administration has opposed the bill out of concern that it would interfere with efforts to form a common front against Iran in the Security Council.

Still, the wording of the warning about confrontation with Iran comes just two pages after the strategy reiterates the 2002 warning that the United States reserves the right to take "anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." The juxtaposition is unlikely to be lost on Iran's leaders.

Sections of the new document discuss at greater length the need to strengthen alliances, with specific references to supporting NATO and reforming the United Nations.

Following Mr. Bush's new push to ward off what he has called a dangerous shift toward isolationism, there is a section that refers to the need to "engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization," a word that did not appear in the 2002 document.

The passage hails the "new flows of trade, investment, information and technology," which it says are transforming national security in every area from the spread of H.I.V./AIDS to avian flu to "environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic megadisasters such as flood, hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis." It stays away from the subject of global warming.


The definitive shift from 'if there will be an attack' to 'when will there be an attack'?

Gerard (Gerard), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:47 (thirteen years ago) link

SHOCKA

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:50 (thirteen years ago) link

These guys never think things through to the end, do they?

Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:20 (thirteen years ago) link

i just thought it all through it seems a fantastic idea

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:27 (thirteen years ago) link

this war. soon another nation will try and take advantage of chaos. and then another war. and another nation. perpetual war fun without having to deal with domestic probs.

how is this bad?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:29 (thirteen years ago) link

China's leaders, it says, are "expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up — as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era."

I no longer lack the capacity for the rational, dispassionate thought required to discern a different between what this suggests China is doing, and what the US does.

Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:32 (thirteen years ago) link

P.S. The thread headline is misleading and alarmist.

Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:33 (thirteen years ago) link

Which is kinda the point.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:35 (thirteen years ago) link

Are you implying this board isn't one for dispassionate, rational discussion, Ned?

Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:48 (thirteen years ago) link

No, just noting that nearly everything about the past few years as reported by everyone seems misleading and alarmist.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:50 (thirteen years ago) link

To somebody or other. "China acting like" they have more paper on US Gov's debts than anybody, and that our star-spangled Free Enterprise is based on sweatshop productivity Over There.

don, Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:26 (thirteen years ago) link

meanwhile

US general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.

President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq.

Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir..."

kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:33 (thirteen years ago) link

Its all lies. Bush has copies of the receipts.

Spink, Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:51 (thirteen years ago) link

Oh, this is just great. Given that picking on a whole new country is out of the question, Bush just wants to loop them into the one he's already got going...

Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 March 2006 23:36 (thirteen years ago) link

five years pass...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

i kinda just can't see past this being the main item on the guardian front page so haven't really screened it but yknow it freaks me out irrespective

Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Wednesday, 2 November 2011 16:36 (seven years ago) link

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

Nigel Farage is a fucking hero (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 2 November 2011 19:09 (seven years ago) link

seven months pass...

The Nobel Peace Prize winner lays the groundwork for his next war (or Romney's first):

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/playing_for_time_on_iran/singleton/

Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:40 (seven years ago) link

six years pass...

to war we're gonna go

Same old, same old Tonkin Gulf. Assume neocon @NYTimes @Wapo etc will keep readers in ignorance. https://t.co/g1IY58tmB7 via @thedailybeast

— Andrew Cockburn (@andrewmcockburn) May 14, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 May 2019 22:38 (four months ago) link

John Bolton: ‘An Attack On Two Saudi Oil Tankers Is An Attack On All Americans’ https://t.co/Dgny7ss6pJ pic.twitter.com/nvxyCtNCVh

— The Onion (@TheOnion) May 15, 2019

mookieproof, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 20:24 (four months ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.