Shifting Targets by Seymour M. Hersh In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.” The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh It's pretty intense, but worth the time.
Hersh is always an interesting read. He blew the lid off a lot of 'top secret' stuff in the past, so he definitely has some high-level connections on the 'inside'. He has a lot of credibility in my book...
I find it kind of ironic how similar Bush and Ahmadinejad. Both voted in by a majority of their country, both focused on votes of religious conservatives, the lower class and used fear of being attacked in order to win. Both hated by intellectuals and the more progressive members of their country. Both are strong nationalists who believe their own military build up is more important than anyone else's. Both blasted by the intellectuals of their country for being idiots and buffoons. Different sides of the same coin. I guess it was inevitable they were going to end up fighting.
The difference is Bush is the most powerful man in America. Ahmadinejed is not and does not control Iran's armed forces and nuclear plans, nor does he make foreign policy.
The sad fact is that even an Ivy University President doesn't know Ahmadinejad is powerless (sadder if he pretended to be ignorant for propaganda purposes). No wonder majority of us can be manipulated by the Bush Admin.
British press is picking up on this. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tory2007/story/0,,2180555,00.html John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...FOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran230.xml Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran By Tim Shipman Last Updated: 1:59am BST 01/10/2007 American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme. # US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran Members of the US secretariat in the United Nations were asked earlier this month to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong", The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. advertisement Some US diplomats believe the exercise — reminiscent of attempts by vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to build the case against Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war — will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the administration. One diplomat revealed the plans for an Iran dossier to Steven Clemons, a fellow with the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, who has previously revealed attempts by Mr Cheney's allies to pressurise President George W Bush into war. He said: "There are people more beholden to the Cheney side who have people searching for things that Iran has done wrong — making the case. They've been given instructions to build a dossier. They've been scouring around for stuff over the last couple of weeks." He recently exposed how a member of Mr Cheney's office used private meetings with neo-conservatives at the American Enterprise think- tank to reveal the vice-president's frustration that Mr Bush had authorised a diplomatic strategy against Iran by his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Last week, Newsweek magazine went further, claiming that David Wurmser, until last month Mr Cheney's Middle East adviser, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Mr Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Teheran that would help justify wider US air strikes. ... Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East desk officer, said the neo-conservatives realised their influence would wane rapidly when Mr Bush left office in just over 15 months. "Whatever crazy idea they have to try to transform the Middle East, they have to push now. The real hardline neo-conservatives are getting desperate that the door of history is about to close on them with an epitaph of total failure." EDIT: Anyone notice the Hersh article is dated October 7, 2007?
I am not entirely sure about that, I think the neocons would at least have a 'receptive' audience in the White House if Guiliani does indeed become the next president. Guiliani is more 'hawkish' than most think.
In the recent Democratic debate only Bill Richardson said he would pull out of Iraq immediately and open diplomatic relations with Iran. The rest would wait until the pot quits boiling and pretty much skirted the Iran issue, except for perhaps opening a dialogue with them. What's strange is that, while I support Richardson, I am against his Iraq/Mideast strategy -- or lack of it. I would wage economic war on Iran. Still, of the Democratic candidates, in the grand scheme of politics I think he is the best one for the job. Weird, eh, mc mark?
Now what do we do? Putin: Iran nuke plans 'peaceful' TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran should be allowed to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday during the first visit to the country by a Kremlin leader since 1943. Putin, who is in Tehran to attend a summit of Caspian Sea nations, said that he and the other leaders agreed that "peaceful nuclear activities must be allowed" in the region. "The Iranians are cooperating with Russian nuclear agencies and the main objectives are peaceful objectives," he said. Russia is building Iran's first nuclear power plant and has resisted moves by the U.S. and its allies to impose stronger U.N. sanctions against Tehran. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/index.html
A matter of when not if. Iran had better get a nuke quick (see North Korea). Think Iraq is a quigmire? Imagine all of Persia embroiled in war.
Bush warns of WWIII over Iran Message comes as Russia expresses skepticism over Tehran's ambitions Reuters Updated: 2:34 a.m. PT Oct 18, 2007 WASHINGTON - President Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions. Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran’s nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran. At a White House news conference, Bush expressed hope Putin would brief him on his talks in Tehran and said he would ask him to clarify recent remarks on Iran’s nuclear activities. Putin said last week that Russia, which is building Iran’s first atomic power plant, would “proceed from the position” that Tehran had no plans to develop nuclear weapons but he shared international concerns that its nuclear programs “should be as transparent as possible.” “The thing I’m interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do,” Bush said. “When we were in Australia (in September), he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it’s not in the world’s interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.” Bush, who has insisted he wants a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue, is pushing for a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Russia, a veto-holding member of the Security Council, backed two sets of limited U.N. sanctions against Iran but has resisted any tough new measures. Stepping up his rhetoric, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a “dangerous threat to world peace.” “We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” he said. “So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Putin's 'special message' Iran rejects accusations it is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, saying it wants nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes such as power generation, and has refused to heed U.N. Security Council demands to halt sensitive uranium enrichment. Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted by Iran’s official IRNA news agency on Wednesday as saying that Putin had delivered a “special message” on its atomic program and other issues. No other details were given. Putin’s visit on Tuesday was watched closely because of Moscow’s possible leverage in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear standoff with the West. It was the first time a Kremlin chief went to Iran since Josef Stalin in 1943. Asked about Putin’s “special message,” U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he was not aware of any deal or offer put forward by Moscow to Tehran over the nuclear program. On Russian opposition to Caspian Sea states being used to launch attacks against Iran, Casey reiterated that Bush kept all his options on the table but that the United States was committed to the diplomatic path with Tehran. Copyright 2007 Reuters. Click for restrictions. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21356241/
So Iran is buds w/ Russia, after what Russia did to the Sunni Muslim Chechens? Somewhere between 30,000-200,000 Chechens died in those conlficts with the Russians. Wonder how ahmadinejad rationalizes that.
