Tech Support Guy banner

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

175222 Views 5049 Replies 122 Participants Last post by  bassetman
I guess some troops will be pulled out of Iraq if this comes to fruition! :eek: I can't help but see how Bush is further alienating us from the world...making America the country to hate! :( Following right along the book of Revelations....I hope and pray along the same lines that Bush realizes sometime before it's too late..that China and Russia are not our "friends"!

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes.

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids
," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there.

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'

Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory
," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."
See less See more
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
hermes said:
Hi Angelize

I can't speak for the US administration, so can only guess their intentions with regard to Iran. I do know that Bush et al are in the process of neutralising anyone that dares to stand up to their Israeli masters. The problem will arise when the action starts on the ground. I have spent time in Iran and tell you now that if Bush thinks he will seal a victory easily he is going to be in for a shock.
LOL--Iran--now thats a wonderful country---maybe we should send Hermes there so that he can be chased around by the religious police.
Iltos---I read the Hersh article--It appears as if Rumsfeld is running the show completely--the neo-cons are in control.
Revolution comes from within---many experts in the field believe that the nascent (seems like its been nascent for years) movement towards liberalization in Iran would be set back years if we were to attack. It would unite the Iranian people and make development impossible. The neoconservatives just don't get it.
Perhaps! Althought I dont see them ever getting the upper hand on the theocracy---The theocracy controls the police and military.
hermes said:
Yeah, great comment linksysjack. With supporters like you how can Bush go wrong.

I don't see any relevance to your comment about me. Can you explain? Cos it sounds like a child in the playground to me.

There are certainly religious police in Iran, as well as a huge and well maintained military arsenal. There are also millions of innocent civilians who have suffered under a hijacked revolution, who are working democratically to change Iran from within. Still neocons like you don't want that do you? Much better to unite them all under the theocracy by allowing their most hated enemies to kick their shins while hiding behind the US.

Yeah, you really thought that comment out didn't you.
Hey everyone--Hermes thinks I'm a neocon??????? That's what happens when you open your mouth before studying! Hermes--what post are you referring too--I think you have me mixed up with Mulder!
I dont think the Hersh article is treasonous....Fact is, I suspect it was leaked to Hersh by the administration---Would make sense. Creates a little paranoia in Iran, when in fact, we aren't in a position to invade or do anything else. It gives the Mullah's something to think about vis a vis the nuclear question.
Thats really funny Alex---we must have posted the same thing within seconds of each other.
The paradox is, that as far as state-sponsered terrorism goes, Iran and Syria are the reigning kings. Iraq was not---We are in Iraq. Go figure.
Thats funny----Mississippi is a red state--why poison everyone?
WarC said:
What many people don't realize is the US has been the target of unconventional and indirect attacks for decades now. Finally the US is reacting and that it must do to protect the interests of the government and its people. We couldn't just go on 'living with' 'acceptable levels' of terrorist attacks, as dear Mr. Kerry put it.

You're very right in that Bush has sent a clear signal that "enough is enough" and to either come out and fight or cooperate as a functioning member of the international community, because free trade, free government and exchange of ideas is the way we're going to defeat terrorism. Countries that continue to supress their people are hotbeds for terrorist organizations as are failed states where government is lacking or non existent, like in Somalia.

This upsets countries that aren't in line with those ideas, like the infamous "Axis of Evil" countries. But, you know, these countries were not aligned with us either way. So this state of affairs isn't our making so much as it is the collective making of several countries spanning several decades.

Does it suck? Yeah it does. To me, every day that passes without an attack on US soil is a victory.

But look on the bright side: Bush is aggressive. We are engaging our enemies like never before and thats why its in our national consciousness a lot more. The Clinton administration just didn't want to deal with the hard facts and make hard decisions which in fact emboldened our enemies and led to the attacks on 9/11. Now, while we are perceived as warmongerers, we are feared as well. So far *knock on wood* we have prevented more attacks on our soil, and theres no doubt that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq helped in acting as a deterent...There are fewer countries willing or able to support the logistical and financial requirements of Al Qaeda in planning those sorts of attacks. We're hunting them now. It is much harder for these organizations to operate than it was in 1999 or 2000.

Take a look at countries like Libya, potential enemies that are turning a new leaf. Or, the spread of a more progressive Islam. These sorts of things routinely take a backseat to the big headline stuff.

The determination that our military shows combined with the inevitable gains that will come to a democratically run country formerly run by tyrannical regimes will begin to change the attitudes that lead to terrorists. The common logic that violence breeds more violence is only true to a degree...Were it entirely true, the world would still be swimmin' in Nazi's. Ideologies can be beaten - and the terrorist ideology will be beaten by winning the fights and then winning the peace. It just won't happen over night...Although we are already seeing profound results (aforementioned lack of attacks on American soil, Afghanistan's new government and relative peace, and now Iraq's forthcoming government and the dwindling insurgency...all within a handful of years since 9/11)
I can agree with much of what you say but this is utter nonsense:

Bush is aggressive. We are engaging our enemies like never before and thats why its in our national consciousness a lot more. The Clinton administration just didn't want to deal with the hard facts and make hard decisions which in fact emboldened our enemies and led to the attacks on 9/11.
Hey, I agree with computer fix---I guess it applies to the Sunnis and Shi in Iraq!
Absolutely Xico--I know of no historian on either the left or the right who doesn't agree that the French paid a critical role in us gaining our independence---How quickly they forget!
Thats just part of the hypocracy of the Republicans--As long as the tax payers money is going to military contractors etc they don't seem to have a major problem with spending. It's only when the money goes towards people in need that they get all conservative on us.
bonzobob999 said:
I doubt very much the US would get support from the UK for an attack on Iran, you just about got a 50/50 with the Iraq problem. I can see in the future the US having to shut the doors to the world and become prisoners in there own country. Theres not many country's where US tourists are welcome now, in fact the UK has seen a big drop in tourism from the US as it is, most fearing to travel. Sad but true, truth is at this rate you will have hit most country's over the next 20 years..............Billy no mates.
Not so--the primary reason the UK and the rest of Europe has seen a decrease in tourism is that horrific situation with the dollar.
Let Freedom Ring---it appears as if the Bu****es can't use the threat of invasion to get Iran in line so now we are joining the Europeans---How fast things change in the Universe of Dubya.
ComputerFix said:
...and if the current approach was "invade" you would be complaining that Bush didn't learn after the last time.

I guess the real problem is you want failure and fault at every turn....

BTW, there is the possibility that Iran is only after electricity, likely more, but this possibility exists. Please tell me the non violent applications of ricin, anthrax, Vx, etc.

Oh, there aren't any? Gee, I guess these are exactly the same. :rolleyes:

I cannot believe that the desire to criticize has extended to refusing to beat the drums of war.
The current approach--hey its your leader who sets things in granite with his moralizing. Two weeks ago Iran was a memember of the Axis of Evil--I'm telling you that this man is one of the great con artists of the 21st Century.
linskyjack said:
Let Freedom Ring---it appears as if the Bu****es can't use the threat of invasion to get Iran in line so now we are joining the Europeans---How fast things change in the Universe of Dubya.
Hey, its your guy who deals with moral absolutes--Last week Iran was a member of the axis of evil--This week we are trying to entice them with giveaways to play nice. I'm telling you, the leader is one of the greatest con artists to come down the pike in years.
I know---I also read today that that weapons cache that we allowed the Baathists to systematically raid, might have contained parts that could have been used to help along a nuclear program.
I can agree with War on that one---Just read an intersting article where Army drill sargents were interviewed about current volunteers and they all said that the quality is way down---Then again, fewer and fewer people are joining the Army and Marines--recruiting is way down--although the Navy and the Airforce recruiting numbers have been maintained. I guess Americans aren't so fast to join a force that will put them in harms way--Iraq---Again, I predicted this in an earlier thread but I doubt very much Mulder will congradulate me on the accuracy of my prediction.
ComputerFix said:
Ummm...maybe its just me, but isn't the purpose of "a force" to go into harms way?
Yes---but the fact remains that most volunteers never expect to be used as human fodder in a war with no plan for the peace. Let the numbers speak. Maybe a draft in order.
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
Not open for further replies.