« Million Buck Chuck and the Democratic Leadership | Main | Immigrate! Immigrate! Dance to the Music »
April 08, 2006
“The Iran Plans”
Posted by Shakes
Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker:
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups…
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’”
Oy. That is all.
April 8, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83481398153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference “The Iran Plans”:
Comments
The seriousness of the situation aside, there really is something dementedly funny about us being so outraged at another country's nascent nuclear program that we have to use nuclear weapons against it.
It'd be like if the police dealt with pot dealers by making them smoke so much pot that they were no longer able to competently be pot dealers.
Or something...
Posted by: Petey | Apr 8, 2006 6:18:52 PM
Anybody want some radioactive oil for their car, home, and office?
How about 300-400 thousand Iranian para-militaries attacking the Green Zone in Iraq and putting the US Ambassdor's head on a pike?
The Straits of Hormuz closed for a couple years to clear the sunk ships (tankers and warships) that prevent Persian Gulf oil getting to market ($5-10 gal. gasoline) from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, Iraq, Iran?
How about George W. Bush suspending the 08 election because of the war with Iran, and proclaiming himself 'Dictator' like when Rome's Senate gave up all their power to a strong man to run things?
How about tens of thousands of US troops overrun by Shias in Iran/Iraq hell-bent on jihad against the American Genociders after the nuclear attack by the US?
Think none of this could or will happen? Dial your time machine back to 2002-2003 and compare what was being said by BushCo then versus today's Iraq reality.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 8, 2006 7:58:39 PM
I'm truly scared. Even if it's just some chickenhawks blowing hot air, it's still a scary prospect. It reminds me a lot of the run-up to the war with Iraq. Cheney went out and breathed fire about attacking right now, that it made Bush seemed like a sensible moderate to go to the U.N. first. I think this may be another example of moving the debate rightward. I hope this tactic won't be as successful this time.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | Apr 8, 2006 8:47:59 PM
There are two possibilities here; one is that they are THAT crazy, the other that they are pretending to be that crazy in order to get Iran nervous. While option two makes a lot of sense (Iran seems to be operating on the notion that the USA has no military options), past performance suggest option one.
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 8, 2006 10:54:36 PM
I had this silly fantasy that George Bush is going to figure out a way to get a presidential pardon on his way out the door in 2009. If he buggers up the world with a nuclear attack on Iran, he may need one a hell of a lot sooner.
Posted by: Zeno | Apr 8, 2006 11:15:46 PM
Jim,
1776
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 9, 2006 9:19:30 AM
Well, Petey, the irony wasn't lost on the Iranians.
I keep getting this wierd feeling that nothing impinges as a "real" problem to the OO unless it affects domestic politics. Everything is about framing and the plan. Living disconnected from physical reality ( i.e. evrything really is "mental" )is a classic definition of madness.
Posted by: opit | Apr 9, 2006 1:16:45 PM
What I want to know is why Hersh is blabbing about American soldiers being in Iran.
If something happens to them because he blabbed, that bastard should be hanged.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Apr 10, 2006 1:11:27 AM
Thank you for your insight, Adam ( idiot ! )
If some more on this is welcome, try http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/4/9/85222/23557
Posted by: opit | Apr 10, 2006 2:34:22 AM
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’”
Whenever I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of a part of a Terry Pratchett book. A police chief in a city ruled by a borderline-insane executive eventually lends his expertise to an outright rebellion. Before doing so, he considers the possibility of keeping his job but lending a hand to the oppressed here and there from a position of authority. "Obeying bad orders in hopes of making them less bad," I think is how Pratchett put it. I forget the exact reason he decided against it, but there were more than enough to choose from, at least in that fictional story.
So whenever I see something critical attributed to a "former defense official" or a "high-ranking CIA official," I wonder if they're following the same logic.
I guess all we can do between now and 2006 or 2008 is hope that Carlos's option two is correct. And hope, and hope...
Posted by: Cyrus | Apr 10, 2006 9:34:11 AM
However you feel about this uncorroborated story and whether it's true or not (which seems unimportant to most here), there is no doubt from Iran's viewpoint that we are not just all talk. Not the 'paper tiger' once thought.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 10, 2006 10:48:56 AM
Actually, Fred, we are. The only military option available to us now is a limited air strike, and Iran has outflanked us on that by making the development sites so hardened we'd need nukes to get through them...and nothing likes headlines across the world blaring "AMERICA LAUNCHES NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE" to make sure nobody weeps too much when North Korea hits Seattle.
But if we had, say, the world's largest army in reserve and waiting to be deployed to Iran, it would lend some major weight to any negotiations. Remember TR's old line, "Walk softly and carry a big stick"? Right now we're treading very loudly and holding a friggin' novelty bat, thanks to the twin blessings of GW's inability to do anything but bluster and his decisiton to tie up the vast majority of our army in Iraq. Iran thinks we aren't just talk? No, they see our armed forces mired in Iraq and they know we're just talk, and that the staggeringly bad risk/reward ratio of the U.S. starting a (deep breath here) NUCLEAR FRIGGIN' WAR with Iran is obvious even to our insulated president.
They moight be wrong about that last point, though.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 10, 2006 1:46:41 PM
Quick reminder. This is Seymour Hersh we're talking about. The man has been wrong about so many things before, and has been the useful idiot for so many political gamesmen in the past, that I actually think an American nuclear attack less likely now than I did before Hersh's article.
Posted by: Mastiff | Apr 10, 2006 5:23:26 PM
