War with Iran next (NOT skiing related, capiche?)

[Dexter Rutecki]

According to Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker reporter who broke the Abu Ghraib(sp?) story, we're getting ready to expand the war to Iran.
That we intend to attack Iran is not news, as it has been a known part of the master plan since the Bushies took over, but according to Hersh if all goes 'well' the attacks will be launched by this summer.
Here's the really big problem--Iran actually does seem to have a WMD program. Obviously, though, thanks to Bush cooking the intelligence on Iraq, the U.S. now has a credibility problem. And with the war in Iraq there are all sorts of problems for the military that will never be solved in the short-term.

I think what makes this even more complicated is the fact that Iranians are actually pretty pro-U.S. (not the government, of course, but most Iranians have a positive opinion of the U.S.). What will happen to that feeling when we start bombing them?

Think there's any chance that this time Bush will handle Iran intelligently and not alienate half the world (again)? I see no reason to expect better from him now, especially not now that the lone voice of reason (Powell) has been replaced by idiot lap-dog Condi.

[Tippster]

Won't happen. No money to go at it unilaterally.

Save your worries for the snow totalls at K-Mart.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Unfortunately I have a better chance of influencing this than I do snowfall at Kmart, or anywhere else. I don't believe an invasion is in the works for this summer, just airstrikes. More fodder for the terrorists.

[Beaver]

I wish Canada was farther from the USA when I hear shit like this. It would really suck to be caught in the crossfire.

[Dexter Rutecki]

CNN took it off the air.

[Slick Willy]

Unfortunately I have a better chance of influencing this than I do snowfall at Kmart, or anywhere else. I don't believe an invasion is in the works for this summer, just airstrikes. More fodder for the terrorists.

Wonderfull, I guess the major ground offensive would come just in time for Kmarts opening weekend

[FNG]

Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush, told CNN's "Late Edition."

Of The New Yorker report, he said: "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact."

Bartlett said the administration "will continue to work through the diplomatic initiatives" to convince Iran -- which Bush once called part of an "axis of evil" -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.

"No president, at any juncture in history, has ever taken military options off the table," Bartlett added. "But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are underway right now."

COMMANDO TASK FORCE

Bush has warned Iran in recent weeks against meddling in Iraqi elections.

The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts.

The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations.

In exchange for this cooperation, the official told Hersh, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has received assurances that his government will not have to turn over Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to face questioning about his role in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret 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."

Defining these as military rather than intelligence operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert activities overseas.

[Jumper Bones]

this is news?

I hate to break it, but there are special ops people everywhere. they do a very good job of blending away and generally not being seen.

and i think it's kind of obvious that we'd be scouting out Iran, considering their nuclear ambitions, rabidly anti-US stance, and sizeable involvement in de-stabilizing Iraq. They've directly threatened us in obvious and not-so-obvious ways.

I don't see it being any break from business as usual, frankly.

[FNG]

I'm not saying it's news. I came across it and thought it relevant to Dex's post. That is all. If I had started a new thread, then you could jump on my bones...er, back.

[edg]

America, fuck yeah!

edg

[Tippster]

Gee, I love it when my company does a story about another companies' journalist. It's so... "newsworthy."

Hedging bets in case he's right, I guess. Please notice that none of Mr. Hersch's claims were substantiated in the Reuters report, just the White House reaction to it. Slow news weekend in DC...

[Dr. Gaper]

America, fuck yeah!

edg

They went north on Dakalakalaka Street!

[hop]

Time to save the muthafuckin' day, YEAH!

[TJ.Brk]

According to Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker reporter who broke the Abu Ghraib(sp?) story, we're getting ready to expand the war to Iran.
That we intend to attack Iran is not news, as it has been a known part of the master plan since the Bushies took over, but according to Hersh if all goes 'well' the attacks will be launched by this summer.
Here's the really big problem--Iran actually does seem to have a WMD program. Obviously, though, thanks to Bush cooking the intelligence on Iraq, the U.S. now has a credibility problem. And with the war in Iraq there are all sorts of problems for the military that will never be solved in the short-term.

I think what makes this even more complicated is the fact that Iranians are actually pretty pro-U.S. (not the government, of course, but most Iranians have a positive opinion of the U.S.). What will happen to that feeling when we start bombing them?

Think there's any chance that this time Bush will handle Iran intelligently and not alienate half the world (again)? I see no reason to expect better from him now, especially not now that the lone voice of reason (Powell) has been replaced by idiot lap-dog Condi.

Dex the election was over 2 months ago. But yes I do understand your point.

[mr_gyptian]

HEH,

mr. conspiracy theory strikes again. the abu ghraib story was quite the coup, breaking it as the soldiers were already on their way to a judge and jury was, once again, outstanding reporting.

Seymour's late for dinner again. Wasn't yours truly talking about this last fall.

maybe I'm working for the wrong people.

I'd hate to be a Russian/Frog/German building that nuke reactor. hope they've got hard hats that resist MOABS.

[FNG]

Invading Iran more of a when than if? It's pretty apparent that we're not going after N. Korea.

[TJ.Brk]

Invading Iran more of a when than if? It's pretty apparent that we're not going after N. Korea.

Hey FNG. I have alot of respect for you. You never back down from any logical fight. But step back an thing about this idea for one second.
"any body in the Gov't that has drawn up true plans about Iran strikes, well they would never tell the press about it"

They would not even leak it untill the birds were out of the land dray fire zone.

[Dexter Rutecki]

"any body in the Gov't that has drawn up true plans about Iran strikes, well they would never tell the press about it"

We're not talking about the actual plans, we're talking about whether or not Iran will be attacked. There are plans to fight everywhere around the world, but we're not actively planning attacks on most of those places. Entirely different things--and it's hardly a secret to the Iranians that they're on the list--Seymour Hersh's article is news least of all to them.
But what you're missing, Teej, is the fact that many in government right now feel compelled to talk to the press because this administration is not interested in hearing any dissenting views. As one staffer basically told Hersh, 'you have to drink the Kool-Aid before you go to one of these [administration] meetings.' Remember what Paul O'Neil and others who left the government made clear--Bush is asleep at wheel and incompetent, at best, and dangerously certain of his own beliefs at worst.
The election may be over, but it's still easy to tell that the wrong guy 'won'.

[summit]

They went north on Dakalakalaka Street!

Same creator different show:

"Dirka dirka mohammed jihad!"

[shamrockpow]

If Iraq had gone well in the first three months, Syria was next in line. That was made very clear, but unforunately (fortunately?) we got bogged down in Iraq. I'm all for covert ops in Iran directed at finding the nukes and even possibly targeting them (although many experts say this isn't possible). What I am against is acting without rock solid (3 steps above "slam dunk") intelligence that lets us know that our strike can be a one-time Osirik type deal where it all ends quickly. If that's not possible, I see zero reason to agitate the situation and zero reason to provoke unforseen consequences internally in Iran, just as the religious revolution (which hijacked the people's revolution) is running its course...

[Jumper Bones]

I watched the news tonight on this; heard two interesting viewpoints. One, is that the President is having DoD gather the intel through its SOCOM means, rather than letting the CIA do it - having been burned on 'slam dunk' CIA reports, the President is leery of giving them full control of the situation again.

Another said that it would be irresponsible and wreckless to NOT gather intelligence on these facilities; after all, they are being used to directly threaten US citizens, US territory, as well as its interests and personnel in the Persian Gulf area.

ABC news.

Either way, I don't see it as a provocation to the Iranian people - our very existence as a nation and people have been a provocation to their religious right since the summer of 1979. This was even before our participation in Gulf War I, and our presence ever since.

There is also a substantial belief that our presence in the region since 1990 is not so much to safeguard the oil reserves for the world economy, but to also keep Iran in check.

[shamrockpow]

Either way, I don't see it as a provocation to the Iranian people - our very existence as a nation and people have been a provocation to their religious right since the summer of 1979. This was even before our participation in Gulf War I, and our presence ever since.

There is also a substantial belief that our presence in the region since 1990 is not so much to safeguard the oil reserves for the world economy, but to also keep Iran in check.

It isn't our existence as a nation, but rather the CIA's direct involvement in bringing the Shah back from exile to replace a popular leader (Mossadeq) in 1953 that the Iranian people resented (along with all other colonial designs). This action also insured that Iranian oil would not be nationalized. The 1978 revolution began as a urban protest movement against the oppresive regime; Shiite religious leaders saw their opportunity and seized control from other secular revolutionaries. Let's keep in mind that we're dealing with a nation that has 5,000 years of history behind it. They don't forget history and neither should we...

PS: I'm surprised nobody has resorted to calling Hersh "America's most dangerous terrorist" as certain Bush butt-boys have done in the last year

[TeleAl]

Not to be stupid here, but there is no evidence that Iran has a WMD program.

Of course, WMD could be made up to serve an agenda,
whatever agenda that is (oil, Christianity, Israel, democratizing the country...wait, Iran already is a democracy )

PNAC (Project for the New American Century).
If you don't know about it, look into it.
All of this (Iraq, Iran, Axis of Evil, democratizing the Middle East, etc.) is related.
And the US voted for it, some 50+%.
If you didn't vote for Bush, then your two neighbors did.
Gotta love your neighbor.

[Jumper Bones]

rrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight.....

[Dexter Rutecki]

Not to be stupid here, but there is no evidence that Iran has a WMD program.

I'll have to check to make sure, but I believe it's widely accepted that they are building/have built facilities to enrich plutonium, and have other nuclear plants that aren't consistent with energy production (as if a country with Iran's oil reserves would need such plants). To complicate matters, these facilities (some of them, anyway) are widely dispersed and 'hardened' against possible attack, so an Osiraq style strike is far from a sure thing.