Seymour Hersh: The Iran Plans.
Seymour Myron Hersh is an American journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam war in 1969, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. In 2004 he reported on the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq.
Here are some extracts from his ‘The Iran Plans’, The New Yorker October 2, 2007.
See the whole report here. Bold by me.
‘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 ‘ 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?’ ‘
‘People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11, but, in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.’
‘This is much more than a nuclear issue,’ one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.’
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. ‘This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,’
The danger, he said, was that ‘it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.’ A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror:
Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, ‘The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.’
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it ‘a juggernaut that has to be stopped.’ He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.
‘If you attack,’ the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, ‘Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.’ The diplomat went on, ‘There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.’ He added, ‘The window of opportunity is now.’
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The potential attack/threat plan appears to be evolving. The Iranian republican Guard (or the Iranian army in general) is now a more likely target. This is more a psychological tactic which will have a higher deterrent value against the leadership such that they might sue for a diplomatic deal. I don’t know why you think the US is either locked in for war or not. Surely it also depends on what Iran’s tactical approach might be? What is their latest statement to the IAEA? Are they afraid of a US attack, or do they think it will bring arabs together, thus a stronger force against the west?
April 8th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Theda
A non-doer is very often a critic-that is, someone who sits back and watches doers, and then waxes philosophically about how the doers are doing. It’s easy to be a critic, but being a doer requires effort, risk, and change.