Tech Support Guy banner

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

175224 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
I do not thinkk the Bush Administration has any intention of invading another country for the rest of his term.
This is not to say the US won't bomb their nuke facility(s). Same with NK.
But any Administration should have a plan of action if it turns out to be necessary.
Hello Fidelista

Fidelista said:
I hope you are right LAN, but I just have a nagging feeling that these folks are capable of anything, rationalizing the wildest things, based on "intel". Am I paranoid? ;)
Perhaps. But I think this admin. realizes they bit off more than they anticipated, and there simply sould be too many people opposed to an iran invasion without VERY CLEAR provocation.
I hope that the Admin would proceed with any operations {inc the use of airpower} with international support, not just Israeli 'influence' and crack-pot intel, as in WMD/Iraq.
We can paint ourselves into corner, it is not impossible even for a rich powerful nation like the U.S.
I think the plans of Wolfowitz--Rove and all of those far right nuts should be viewed with caution, they are capable of almost anything {in my opinion}.
I view all plans with caution. Right and left alike. :up:
I have read many of your post Lan, and I know you are conservative, but neo-con? I think not! :) So I think you have doubts also ?:) >f
Of course. But I don't thinkn this story has any real merit. I might support dropping bombs on Iran's nuke facility(s). But even I am of the opinion that we have unfinished business elsewhere to complete first.

What's strange is this has actually worked out in Iran and NK's favor.
Both of them know a third front would be very unpopular in the US. So they are getting away with murder in the meantime. :(
LOL We agree on the destination. The route is the only thing uopn we differ.

That is why I try to take politics a bit less seriously than I used to.
I found that even those with whom I disagree are most often seeking the same goal, but seeking to obtain that goal differently than I would.
bassetman said:
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
Neither do I. Bou bombing a nuclear weapons facility is not the same as bombing the Iranian people.

And of course, I think we must present the UNSC the "chance" to join the US and allied nations before confronting the evil in Iran.
linskyjack said:
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!
You right-wing knuckle-dragging neocon, you! :D :D :D
Let's assume the DOD does have some spies who have penetrated the Iranian border to gather intelligence.

1. Why is that a bad thing? Iran has been a potential enemy for over 2 decades. I think I'd be more worried if we did not have a couple of spies there by now.

2. If true, shouldn't Seymour Hersh be tried and convicted of treason against the USA? And face the death penalty?

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
xico, no, I do not want to limit free speech. But it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crouded movie theater. Free speech has never meant you can say anything, anytime, anywhere. :p

Linsky, I think you're right on the money with post # 41. :up:
iltos said:
i don't mean this personally LAN, but this phrase caught my strikes me as indicative of this administration's thinking re: policy in general, but foreign policy in is a thought process that starts with fear and mistrust about activities that are not so unlike our own, and then makes them different because they don't serve our interests anymore, and finally ends up condemning by questioning their peaceful intent.

it occurs to me that many praise this thought process in a round-a-bout way by reiterating over and over how no other country in the world will stand up to these kinds of activities, and how much of the rest of the world (our 'allies') support this thought process of ours, but are too weak to do it themselves.

and i'm reminded of bush's infamous line (to paraphrase)....'if you're not with us, your against us'....

and so led to wonder about fear and mistrust as motivators of policy, what it suggests about the reasons for allegiances, and what it might mean about the significance of being a 'potential enemy'
Come on. Now you're just trying to pile on.
Iran was a trouble spot L O N G before the current Bush administration.
The mistrust and fear in Iran can be traced back as far as Carter, at least.

ChrisJones said:
Yep :up: but If I start I won't be able to stop....

In fact I hereby rename President Bush, Mr Pringles cos once he invades one country he can't help but invade another.
In that case you'd want to call him President Lays, since that more closely matches the Lays motto. :eek: :D:D:D

Yet ... President "Lays" might be more accurate when speaking about the Clinton Administration instead. :eek: :D:D:D
"We Received Money and Arms from Syria and Iran"

In a confession shown on Iraqi TV, the leader of Saddam Hussein’s “Army of Muhammad” admits that Syria and Iran are supplying the Iraqi holy warriors with money and weapons: We Received Money and Arms from Syria and Iran.

’Aid Came from the Neighboring Countries - We Got Aid Primarily from Iran’

Interrogator: “Did you get support from the countries of the region?”

Muayed Al-Nasseri: “Yes, sir... Many factions of the resistance are receiving aid from the neighboring countries. We in the Army of Muhammad - the fighting has been going on for almost two years now, and there must be aid, and this aid came from the neighboring countries. We got aid primarily from Iran. The truth is that Iran has played a significant role in supporting the Army of Muhammad and many factions of the resistance. I have some units, especially in southern Iraq, which receive Iranian aid in the form of arms and equipment.”

Interrogator: “You’re referring to units of the Army of Muhammad?”

Muayed Al-Nasseri: “Yes. They received money and weapons.”

’[Fighters] Met Personally with Iranian Leader Khamenei... They Even Got Car Bombs’

Muayed Al-Nasseri: “As for other factions of the resistance, I have reliable information regarding the National Islamic resistance, which is one of the factions of resistance, led by Colonel ‘Asi Al Hadithi. He sent a delegation to Iran from among the people of the faction, including General Halaf and General Khdayyer. They were sent to Iran in April or May and met with Iranian intelligence and with a number of Iranian leaders and even with Khamenei.”

Interrogator: “You mean they personally met with Khamenei?”

Muayed Al-Nasseri: “According to my information, they met with him personally, and they were given one million dollars and two cars full of weapons. They still have a very close relationship with Iran. They receive money, cars, weapons, and many things. According to my information, they even got car bombs.”

See less See more
iltos said:
not piling on, LAN

remember the domino theory? communism was gonna crush us if we let it make inroads ANYWHERE?
It still could. Look at the current Socialization occuring across Western Europe. :eek:

i believe the same thinking is at work here, only, as your avatar (very cool, btw) illustrates so well....we are just pouring fuel on the flames

as the buffalo springfield once sang...
"into your heart it will creep
it starts when you're always afraid"

imo...the considerations bantied about on this thread do not point to a strong america, but a weak one
Thanks about the avatar compliment. I thought it was cute. But I'll be changing it soon enough.

Many here loathe the idea of a strong America.
I re-iterate, it will require a direct attack on US forces or US civilians in order for the US to consider attacking Iran seriously.

I do not hear a threat from Iran except to say they promise to retaliate if attacked.
We have promised the same.
LOL Iltos,
Here's the full size gif;


See less See more
I have recently had to ask myself that question seriously, Izme.
And no, I think, unless we are attacked, we should ignore Iran militarily but keep a watchful eye on them.
iltos said:
i stand on my astonishment at so little outrage :mad:
Outrage over what?
Have we attacked Iran? :confused:
izme said:
it is a good question Lan

It only adds to the fire and feeds the War machine, but pre-emptive strike is our Nation's motto now, the big what if's, how can we change the world? Should we? If we take out Iran, does it stop there? And does it bring us one step closer to our own demise? What about North Korea? Violence begats violence plain and simple. If many Nations had no interest in taking us out, they will if we don't stop this. Even a big bear won't corner a wolverine :D
I will tell you this. I will not support ground troop movements into any country pre-emptively UNLESS AND UNTIL we can declare complete victory in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Even then, the intelligence had better be far better than it was with the Iraq war.
This is coming from one who has and still does support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, if we are attacked by Iran or even NK for that matter, I would fully support a nuclear response.
iltos said:
purely political, angel. :p ....tho methinks the articles you're posting on this thread are feeding the fuel of my tough for me to come to grips with policies created out of fear.
Looks like Seymore Hersh is the one spewing the fears. Not the Administration.
angelize56 said:
But Hersh got his info somewhere...from some higher up...right! ;)
That is quite an assumption considering how the press is willing to make up news. Lets not forget the lessons of CBS.
linskyjack said:
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.
I completely agree.
izme said:
That is very good! It should be a thread in itself

when will be our glorious victory? What a question indeed, and will it be glorious? We must put some sort of meaniing to all of our children and their children dying.
I didn't use the word, "glorious", you did.
Afghanistan is looking more and more like a stunning victory for not only the Afghan people, but also for the coalition, and the region. :up:

I totally agree with you on several points here, let's hope it does not ever come to a Nuclear response.
Yes, I would dread the use of such an option. :( I do not offer that solution lightly. The attack on the US would need to be something as severe as 9/11 for me to offer up that as a response.

Take two men and stand them neck deep in gasoline, give them each 20,000 matches, it only takes one match to end it all. ;)
Point taken. However the two men are separated by 20 feet of dry ground. One of the men only has 3 matches while the other has 10,000 and the means to deliver them safely atop the first man.
But! The problem is that there are other people in the playground with matches, like China, Israel, Russia, and who really knows who else? :eek:

So let's run a scenario;

As briefly as possible, lets assume you're a terrorist. You have a small-to-medium nuke - assume a suitcase explosive nuke and the means to transport it anywhere in the world.
Pick a target and what statement you'll be trying to make with the attack.
See less See more
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
Not open for further replies.