What war with Iran would look like

Time: You recently invited President Bush to a televised debate. If he were sitting where I am sitting, what would you say, man to man?

Ahmadinejad: …I gave some recommendations to President Bush in my personal letter, and I hope that he will take note of them. I would ask him, Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism and logic - are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another.

Time: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

Ahmadinejad: We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings. For that reason, last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.

Time: How far will Iran go in defying Western demands? Will you wait until you are attacked and your nuclear installations are destroyed?

AhmadInejad: Do you think the u.s. administration would be so irrational?

Time: You tell me.

Ahmadinejad: I hope that is not the case. I said that we need logic. We do not need attacks.

Time: Are you worried about an attack?

Ahmadinejad: No.

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters.

The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1.

A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway.

So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.

Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.

The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power.

Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis.

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

FREEDOM TOWER

Memory Foundations

I arrived by ship to New York as a teenager, an immigrant, and like millions of others before me, my first sight was the Statue of Liberty and the amazing skyline of Manhattan. I have never forgotten that sight or what it stands for. This is what this project is all about.

When I first began this project, New Yorkers were divided as to whether to keep the site of the World Trade Center empty or to fill the site completely and build upon it. I meditated many days on this seemingly impossible dichotomy. To acknowledge the terrible deaths which occurred on this site, while looking to the future with hope, seemed like two moments which could not be joined. I sought to find a solution which would bring these seemingly contradictory viewpoints into an unexpected unity. So, I went to look at the site, to stand within it, to see people walking around it, to feel its power and to listen to its voices. And this is what I heard, felt and saw.
The great slurry wall is the most dramatic element which survived the attack, an engineering wonder constructed on bedrock foundations and designed to hold back the Hudson River. The foundations withstood the unimaginable trauma of the destruction and stand as eloquent as the Constitution itself asserting the durability of Democracy and the value of individual life.

We have to be able to enter this ground while creating a quiet, meditative and spiritual space. We need to journey down, some 30 feet into the Ground Zero Memorial site, past the slurry wall, a procession with deliberation.
The foundation, however, is not only the story of tragedy but also reveals the dimensions of life. The Path trains continue to traverse this ground now, as before, linking the past to the future. Of course, we need a Museum at the epicenter of Ground Zero, a museum of the event, of memory and hope. The Museum becomes the entrance into Ground Zero, always accessible, leading us down into a space of reflection, of meditation, a space for the Memorial itself. This Memorial will be the result of an international competition.
Those who were lost have become heroes. To commemorate those lost lives, I created two large public places, the Park of Heroes and the Wedge of Light. Each year on September 11th between the hours of 8:46 a.m., when the first airplane hit and 10:28 a.m., when the second tower collapsed, the sun will shine without shadow, in perpetual tribute to altruism and courage.

We all came to see the site, more than 4 million of us, walking around it, peering through the construction wall, trying to understand that tragic vastness. So I designed two ramps, one from Liberty Street running along the great slurry wall and one from Greenwich, behind the waterfall to the southern edge of the site. Now everyone can see not only Ground Zero Memorial site but the resurgence of life.
The exciting architecture of the new Lower Manhattan Rail station with a concourse linking the Path trains, the subways connected, hotels, a performing arts center, office towers, underground malls, street level shops, restaurants, cafes; create a dense and exhilarating affirmation of New York.

The sky will be home again to a towering spire of 1776 feet high, the Antenna Tower with gardens. Why gardens? Because gardens are a constant affirmation of life. A skyscraper rises above its predecessors, reasserting the pre-eminence of freedom and beauty, restoring the spiritual peak to the city, creating an icon that speaks of our vitality in the face of danger and our optimism in the aftermath of tragedy. Life victorious.


Daniel Libeskind
New York
Febuary, 2003

The tower, to be a centerpiece of the rebuilding plan for the World Trade Center site, is to rise 1,776 feet (541m)-- a nod to the year the United States declared its independence. The height was originally proposed a year ago by architect Daniel Libeskind, since designated the site's master planner.
In addition, a broadcast antenna attached to the tower is to bring the structure's total height above 2,000 feet.
The tower's angular shape and appearance has been altered as a result of Libeskind's work with David Childs, the architect for real estate developer Larry Silverstein, the trade center leaseholder who aspires to replace all 10 million square feet of commercial space lost in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The intentional crashes of hijacked passenger jets leveled the 110-story twin towers and five smaller buildings, and killed 2,752 people.

GROUND ZERO

5 years after the tragedy of 9/11 world is not a safer place Mr. President!
Of course it was a freaking tragedy, I really do feel for the victims, and I don’t hate Americans I’m just criticising their bloody government. I mean, which is worse? Screwing an intern or screwing the country? After the terrorist attack on World Trade Center, World stood behind America ( We are all Americans) and their aggression in Afghanistan but they have spoiled it with Iraq (there were no weapons of mass destruction, not even beneath Saddam’s bed) and Guantanamo (talking about human rights) and they’re doing it again in Lebanon. Bush and his son are like dumb and dumber, there are more Bin Laden wannabes now than 5 years ago and I don’t even want to speak about that slimy pet dog of his (yes Blair). Uncle Sam is a freak! Don’t listen to him, you’re not the “good guys” it’s just not that simple. What are you gonna do next? Nuke the Iran? Then what?

DEATH OF A PRESIDENT

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.
Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.
But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.
The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.
The film, which Channel 4 describes as 'a thought-provoking critique of contemporary America' has been written and directed by Gabriel Range.
Death Of A President is not the only way More4 will be exploring the impact of the War on Terror, the channel announced at a launch yesterday.
The Trial of Tony Blair, by the makers of the farce A Very Social Secretary, will take a 'darkly humorous' look at what will happen to the Prime Minister after he leaves office.