The inestimable Seymour Hersh delivers another can’t-miss update on Bush & Co.‘s plans to strike Iran. Hersh points out that even more so than about Iraq, we are clueless about Iran’s capabilities, and many military planners are seething that the White House is taking Iran’s nuclear capabilites for granted.
New Yorker:
On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, ?the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.? Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started. The question was whether the Administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about ?freedom for the Iranian people,? and he added, ?Iran?s leaders have a clear choice.? There was an unspoken threat: the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President?s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.
Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President?s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran?s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.
A crucial issue in the military?s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. ?The target array in Iran is huge, but it?s amorphous,? a high-ranking general told me. ?The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?? The high-ranking general added that the military?s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. ?We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,? he said.
Link
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
Previous item: Jimmy Carter: We Need Fewer Secrets
Next item: Expert Finds That Coulter Plagiarized
The Terror Con
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Joan J, July 4, 2006 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It seems to me we’ve been hearing this song for quite awhile. Anyone really surprised?
Report thisBy Hilding Lindquist, July 4, 2006 at 5:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Neocon dictum on the use of power to encrease power is antithetical to our core values clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights ... and—for those who call ours a Christian nation—Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount.
Neocon’s with their wild-eyed scheme to make the Middle East safe for Israel (I’d like it to be safe for everybody) are not conservative (reflecting our established laws and traditions in aspiring to the oughtness embodied in our transcending ideals) nor American (reflecting the separation of powers in a republic based on a constitution and law) nor even Christian (recognizing that the responsibility for ending any cycle of violence rests with the stronger in the conflict, and as Children of Almighty God, we are—in fact and always—the strongest).
Report thisBy James, July 3, 2006 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Now this is what you call investigative journalism….
Report this