The World Forum - Political Forums

Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.

submit story | sections | topics | your account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | RSS
] International %% Africa %% Asia %% Australia/Oceania Europe %% North America %% South America %% Blogs %% Site Talk ]

 Iran Next On The US Invasion List?


War & Terror

By Drog (Canada), Section United States of America
Posted on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 11:02:14 AM PST

Journalist Seymour Hersh, of The New Yorker magazine, is a thorn in the Pentagon's side. His track record isn't perfect, but his piece "Selective Intelligence" correctly predicited that no WMD's would be found in Iraq, and it was he who broke the story on the Abu Ghraib prison abuses (you can find all his stories here).

Now, in his latest story "The Coming Wars", Seymour Hersh claims that the Bush Administration has not let the deteriorating situation in Iraq deter them from their long-range policy goal of establishing democracy throughout the Middle East. And Iran is next in their sights.

His sources's tell him that President Bush has authorized secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia, and that Rumsfeld can run the operations off the books, free from the legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A.

The Administration has also been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer, accumulating intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen or more targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids.

An American task force has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan, searching for underground installations and using remote detection devices ("sniffers") to detect radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs. Getting that evidence is crucial to the Bush Administration, as they don't want a repeat of the WMD intelligence mistakes in Iraq.

The Pentagon is also updating its contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran, taking into account the fact that the U.S. can now invade Iran not only by sea but also by ground via Afghanistan or Iraq.

As Reuters reports, the Pentagon has criticized Hersh's story.

"The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said in a statement, adding that the article was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," and that Hersh's sources fed him "rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."

DiRita did not comment, however, on Hersh's claim that President Bush had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.


Help create the world's greatest international forum. Tell the world what you think about this story — get your free account and post your comments.

What's your opinion?
Welcome to our discussion below!
(Free signup required to post comments.)

Advertisement

Coming soon!

The world could use more dialogue about its differences — a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.
Display: Sort:
Iran (none / 1) (#1)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:24:03 PM PST

Getting that evidence is crucial to the Bush Administration, as they don't want a repeat of the WMD intelligence mistakes in Iraq.

There was no intelligence failure in Iraq, the US intelligence services did exactly what the government intended them to do -- they produced politically convenient summaries that supported the policies the administration had already decided upon, without letting reality get in the way.

The US is doing the same thing in Iran.  They're operating under the assumption that only force is going to stop the Iranians, which must be done because a nuclear Iran is a threat to America.  They need as much information as they can about what sites to target so they can cripple the Iranian nuclear program, after which the threat of American military power will keep Iran in line, and possibly even spark a revolution to depose the current government and replace it with something more friendly and democratic.

All of which is completely wrong.  

A nuclear Iran is more a threat to neo-con aspirations for a friendly Iraq hosting long-term US bases than it is a threat to the US proper.  A nuclear Iran is very much a threat to Israel, however.  

Iran has little reason to fear American military power as they've had a long and visible demonstration of its limits as the US Army exhausts its strength in Iraq.  If Iran wants to retaliate subtlely, they are very well equipped to send operatives into Iraq to foster violence, and to supply support and encouragement to independent groups seeking to oppose the US.  If they want to be overt, it's hard to say how much damage they could do.  The US government seems to be unaware that their new-found borders with Iran work both ways.

The notion that this is going to destabilize the Iranian government is also deeply questionable.  I doubt very much the Iranian people will see this as an attack on their government; I think they'll see it as an attack on them, as an effort by the US to hold Iran down.  

But the US is in a difficult position here, as sooner or later Israel will take matters into its own hands, which has the potential to produce entirely new kinds of ugly.  

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.

Re: Iran (none / 0) (#2)
by Drog (Canada) on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 10:09:20 AM PST

There was no intelligence failure in Iraq, the US intelligence services did exactly what the government intended them to do -- they produced politically convenient summaries that supported the policies the administration had already decided upon, without letting reality get in the way.

No argument here, although wasn't it actually the Administration that selectively picked intelligence reports that supported their policies while ignoring those that did not, as opposed to the CIA?

A nuclear Iran is very much a threat to Israel, however.

Yes, and I do not believe Israel will let Iran develop nuclear weapons capability unchecked. I fully expect Israel to pre-emptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities, whether they gather that intelligence on their own or with the help of the U.S. I suspect the U.S. would be more than happy to give all their intelligence to Israel and let Israel do the dirty work and take the heat afterwards.

I doubt very much the Iranian people will see this as an attack on their government; I think they'll see it as an attack on them, as an effort by the US to hold Iran down.

I agree.

[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (none / 1) (#3)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 04:46:00 PM PST

No argument here, although wasn't it actually the Administration that selectively picked intelligence reports that supported their policies while ignoring those that did not, as opposed to the CIA?

I've read more than a few things to suggest otherwise, such as this, written by a former Pentagon staffer.  If her assertions are correct, then the Bush administration seeded US intelligence services with personnel who actively supported administration goals and suppressed contrary information, and worked to marginalize people who didn't toe the party line.  

I fully expect Israel to pre-emptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities, whether they gather that intelligence on their own or with the help of the U.S. I suspect the U.S. would be more than happy to give all their intelligence to Israel and let Israel do the dirty work and take the heat afterwards.

I'd be very concerned about the potential backlash against Israel in the Arab world if this were to happen.  The US is depending on the support of muslim nations who, I expect, would draw a line between supporting American activity in Iraq and supporting Israeli strikes against a muslim nation.  Saudi Arabia isn't the most stable nation on earth and a revolution there could get very ugly for the US.  The consequences of Musharraf being deposed in nuclear-armed Pakistan are even uglier.

This isn't rogue totalitarian Saddam enriching plutonium at Osiraq, and the Arab world isn't the same as it was in 1981.

I'm afraid you may be right, though.  I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel took an active part in any Iranian strikes.  I'm just not looking forward to the consequences.

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]



Login

Username:
Password:

Signup to post comments, to vote on story submissions and to set preferences.

create account | faq | search