Interesting thesis, but I feel his argument is flawed.
He does however not mention that the weapons of this yield range (up to a hundred kilotons or so) are tactical weapons, not strategic, and have always been a considered option for any action towards a well-fortified target such as a bunker in American military planning. With their fancy for excessive contingency planning, it shouldn't come as a surprise they have a plan that involves the possible use of such weapons, as they are the best tool for the job in a military sense. Though politically it's less appetising.
I don't agree with his reasoning about the chain of command - taking the swift reaction as a sign of a secret government ploy to hoodwink the military is a bit reaching. Rather, it sounds more like a swift attempt at damage control now that the information has become available to the public. The fact that they were not transported in special planes may have many different reasons, most of them benign and brought on by logistical issues - especially if we consider the timeframe for this strike against Iran, which seems rather tight. Nuclear weapons are not vials of nitrogen glycerin just itching to go off, and it may well be they deemed it necessary to forego the regulations to get things in place.
Quote:
|
Such an attack will devastate Iran's economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets.
|
What is he basing this on?
I think the notion that Dick Cheney and the Secret Service are going to conduct their own strike against Iran because the joint chiefs won't comply with his own vision is outright silly. And then going on, hinting at a much greater involvement in the events of 9/11 from his side. Maybe I am reading into his arguments too much, but those are the implications of what he is saying and I don't buy them at all.