Echoes of Iraq as Hawks Push for Attack on Iran

by Zachary Roth
Published on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 by Yahoo news

Emboldened by President Obama's political struggles, foreign-policy hard-liners are stepping up efforts to press the administration to take a tougher stance -- and perhaps even launch an attack -- on Iran.

Sen. Lindsey Graham's close ally McCain (R-Ariz.) urged Obama to "do something dramatically different" on Iran, by publicly "advocating regime change." (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Andrew Vaughan)

Some observers see parallels with the successful multiyear campaign for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. "The theoreticians who called for war in Iraq as a way to stop Saddam acquiring weapons of mass destruction are at it again, with the same playbook," Joel Rubin of the liberal National Security Network told The Upshot.

Of course, advocates of an aggressive foreign policy have long talked up the notion of an attack on Iran as a means of preventing the Islamic republic from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- remember Sen. John McCain's "Bomb Iran" performance from the 2008 presidential campaign? But with a weakened president, the effort to promote a military strike is "definitely going into a higher gear" of late, Matthew Duss of the liberal Center for American Progress told The Upshot.

On Saturday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a prominent Republican voice for an aggressive foreign policy, floated the idea of an all-out offensive against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime -- "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. In other words, neuter that regime. Destroy their ability to fight back."

Speaking at an international conference in Halifax, Canada, Graham held out the prospect of Republican support if President Obama goes beyond the administration's current policy of tough economic sanctions.

Graham is not alone. At the same event, his close ally McCain (R-Ariz.) urged Obama to "do something dramatically different" on Iran, by publicly "advocating regime change."

In late September, more than 50 House Republicans, including Minority Leader John Boehner, signed a letter to the president: "We urge you to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. All options should be on the table in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Just days before last week's midterms, Washington Post columnist David Broder raised eyebrows by arguing that Obama should ramp up arms production and create "a showdown with the mullahs" in order to kick-start the U.S. economy and boost his political standing. Versions of Broder's argument had already been made this year two separate times, by neoconservative foreign policy thinkers Elliott Abrams and Daniel Pipes. Abrams was a staffer on President George W. Bush's National Security Council, where he had strongly advocated for the invasion of Iraq. And Pipes, as the founder and director of the conservative Middle East Forum think tank, was also a staunch supporter of the Iraq war.

Obama has consistently advocated a diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran, and he's unlikely to do an about-face. But advocates of a military strike may be playing a longer game. Here again, critics point to the precedent of the Iraq invasion. During the 1990s, a well-connected group of neoconservative foreign policy thinkers, including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and Richard Perle, who would later chair the Defense Policy Advisory Board in the George W. Bush administration, worked with Republicans in Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government. The legislation wasn't aimed at spurring then-President Clinton to launch an invasion -- there was little chance of that. Instead, the idea was to give the goal of regime change long-term momentum and a bipartisan veneer, since the law was signed by a Democratic president. That helped pave the way once the country had a Republican president more likely to sign off on an invasion.

Supporters of the Obama administration's diplomatic approach say that advocates of an Iran invasion are pursuing the same long-term strategy now.:By putting the issue on the table right now, Iran hawks are hoping to limit the president's room to maneuver, and make it easier for a future president to launch a military strike. "Iraq didn't happen in two months," Rubin told The Upshot, noting that it took five years from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 until the 2003 invasion. "So this is the playbook."

Indeed, Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy magazine wrote recently that he's anticipating "some kind of Iran Liberation Act on the horizon" from the GOP Congress.

Duss agreed. "You see them running a very similar game as they ran in the '90s," he said. During that period, Republicans and their allies frustrated many of Clinton's political goals, "then offered [the Iraq Liberation Act] as a way to be bipartisan."

And last week's election results give the hawks more leverage. "After the election, they feel the broader Obama agenda has been rejected," Rubin said. "There's a feeling they may have Obama a bit more on the ropes." And that, in turn, may make the president more willing to move toward the GOP on Iran policy, observers say. "Graham is saying: If [Obama] wants Republican support and bipartisanship, being tougher on Iran would work," according to Rubin.

Starting in January, advocates of a tougher line on Iran will have powerful allies in Congress who could help advance that plan. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a veteran Iran hawk who has downplayed the effectiveness of sanctions, will take over as chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rubin, Duss and others who oppose the hawks' escalating rhetoric say there's no doubt that Iran is a genuine threat to world security. But they argue that publicly raising the threat of a military strike is likely to be counterproductive. "Launching a third war in the Middle East against a Muslim country," Rubin wrote in the Jewish Chronicle on Monday, "will increase our vulnerability to terrorist attack, will increase the likelihood that Iran will accelerate its nuclear program, will expose Israel to powerful military attack with unpredictable consequences, will place our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk, will severely harm the Iranian people and will trigger a new oil crisis."

Still, the call for a more aggressive stance is winning support from America's top ally in the Middle East. On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told Vice President Joe Biden that Iran must be made to fear a military strike -- a departure from Netanyahu's previous focus on diplomacy as the best counter to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

© 2010 Yahoo news

Anti-Nuclear Rally Protests Against 'Chernobyl on Wheels'

Anti-Nuclear Rally Protests Against 'Chernobyl on Wheels'

Protesters confront Areva shipment of 123 tons of radioactive waste on 900-mile run from France to Germany

by Kim Willsher in Paris and Kate Connolly in Berlin
Published on Saturday, November 6, 2010 by the Guardian/UK

About 30,000 anti-nuclear protesters are expected to demonstrate Saturday against a shipment of highly radioactive nuclear waste, nicknamed "Chernobyl on wheels", that is being moved across France and Germany by train.

Police approach a group of anti-nuclear activists who attached themselves to railway tracks to block a train (L rear) carrying nuclear waste to Germany during a protest near Caen November 5, 2010. Activists from "Sortir du nucleaire" (Phasing out the nuclear age) halted the train in the northwestern city of Caen after its departure from Valognes.

Although the exact route of the convoy is being kept secret, protesters have organized demonstrations at cities along its 900-mile route.

At least 17,000 German riot police are poised for what could be one of the biggest anti-nuclear demonstrations in years. By early this afternoon hundreds of activists had chained themselves to trees along the route or were preparing to lock themselves to the railway track.

The specially constructed low-speed train, carrying 123 tonnes of German radioactive waste, which was reprocessed in eastern France, started out today from Valognes, Normandy, near La Hague. It was expected to cross the French-German border early tomorrow and to arrive in Gorleben, in the far north-east of Lower Saxony, a few hours later.

Yannick Rousselet, of Greenpeace, said: "Never in history has such a quantity of radioactive material ever been transported."

Laura Hameaux, of Sortir du Nucléaire, a network of 875 anti-nuclear groups, said: "It is at least twice the radioactivity of all the radioactive pollution from the Chernobyl catastrophe and [local people] haven't even been informed of its route."

The waste convoy is the 11th of its type between France and Germany since 1996. In 2004 an anti-nuclear protester died in France after his leg was cut off by a train transporting nuclear waste to Germany. He had been sitting on the railway track.

Protesters have tried to block previous trains, but protests over the latest convoy have been boosted in Germany by growing public anger at the decision by Angela Merkel's government to extend the life of the country's existing nuclear power plants for an extra 12 years.

The decision is a reversal of one of the policy achievements of the government of the former Social Democratic chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Areva, the industrial conglomerate and leader in nuclear power, has agreements with Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear power plants. It receives, stores and processes the fuel, which remains the property of the country that produced it; the waste is sent back after treatment.

The latest shipment of waste will arrive in the German town of Dannenberg tomorrow and be transported the final 12 miles by lorry to Gorleben to be dumped into underground shafts. There are doubts about the safety of the storage following evidence of a high danger of groundwater contamination at the site.

Rebecca Harms, a Green MEP, said she expected the protest to be the biggest for years. "This year's transport of nuclear waste will provoke more opposition than ever before. It's time that people's concerns are finally listened to." she said.

Greenpeace has warned that the load contains even higher than normal levels of radioactive waste, due to the fact that the rods were in use for longer than usual.

Police and politicians have called for the nuclear industry, and not the taxpayer, to foot the €50m (£43m) bill the security operation is expected to cost.

Areva said today: "All operations related to these transports and the equipment used comply with the relevant national and international regulations that have been issued with the involvement of representatives from member states." The company insists the waste containers have been designed to withstand a 50-meter fall on to concrete and a fire of 800C (1,472F) lasting 30 minutes.

Christophe Neugnot, Areva spokesman, called Greenpeace's action a smokescreen avoiding "the real issue of the rebirth of nuclear power throughout Europe". He said: "If we want to produce electricity all the time at a reduced price and without heating up the planet we cannot do without nuclear. Renewable energies remain insufficient today. This convoy is less radioactive than six similar transports carried out by Areva in the last few years. We have nothing to hide." Greenpeace is suing Areva for what is says is "illegal storage of waste" at Valognes.

Anti-nuclear protesters said they were not aiming to hold up the convoy but highlight the failure of the nuclear industry to find long-term solutions to the waste it produces. Every year about 7,000 cubic meters of waste are produced by the 143 nuclear reactors in the EU. "It's like thinking up the idea of an airplane without thinking of where it's going to land," Rousselet said.

Waste disposal

The radioactive by-products of nuclear fission were processed by heating the waste until the liquid evaporated and formed a powder which was then "vitrified" - fused with glass in a melting furnace. The molten glass was then poured into stainless steel canisters, left to cool and fitted with a welded cover. The canisters, weighing 400kg each, are being carried in 11 train wagons made of forged steel or cast iron that have been used to transport nuclear waste between France and Germany since 1996. Another four carriages in the train are occupied by French CRS - armed riot police - ready to intervene in the event of security breaches. Helicopters are flying over the train paying particular attention to bridges and possible obstacles on the railway line. On arrival the estimated 308 canisters will be removed from their casks and buried into rock.

© 2010 Guardian News and Media Limited