tick tick tick tick...

[Guest guest]

Hersh: Bush admin planning 'surgical' strikes in Iran

Posted October 1st, 2007 at 9:30 am

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

 

The president is connecting Iran to attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

Cheney's rhetoric is becoming more strident. Senate Republicans and a

few too many Dems have labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as

" terrorists. " Freedom's Watch is considering a national advertising

campaign focused on Iran, comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and hoping

to convince Americans that Iran will try to destroy the United States

and Israel.

 

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh explains that this isn't an accident.

If his sources are right, plans for a military confrontation with Iran

are moving forward apace.

 

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. [...]

 

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the

President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was

thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the

British " were on board. " [...]

 

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a

former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited

strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off

criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save

soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say,

" Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in

Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives. " The

former intelligence official added, " There is a desperate effort by

Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, 'You can't do it, because every

Republican is going to be defeated, and we're only one fact from going

over the cliff in Iraq.' But Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the

Republican worries, and neither does the President. "

 

Apparently, Cheney is, once again, calling the shots, and he has a

plan. This isn't " Regime Change 2007″ -- there wouldn't be another

occupation -- but rather a fast " in and out " mission. What could

possibly go wrong? Swoop in, drop a few bombs, be home in time for

dinner.

 

It's not as if these guys have rushed into military confrontations in

the Middle East based on ridiculously optimistic military scenarios

and dubious intelligence before, right?

 

 

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened

focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and

admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-

launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks

and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important

Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and

control facilities.

 

" Cheney's option is now for a fast in and out -- for surgical strikes, "

the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint

Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over

its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. " The Navy's

planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and

operating daily. They've got everything they need -- even AWACS are in

place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying

FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf. " There are also plans to hit

Iran's anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. " We've got to get

a

path in and a path out, " the former official said.

 

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing

campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he

called " short, sharp incursions " by American Special Forces units into

suspected Iranian training sites. He said, " Cheney is devoted to this,

no question. "

 

What happens next? Hersh was on CNN yesterday, explaining that

administration officials will argue that this isn't about invading

another Middle Eastern country and overthrowing a rival government;

this is about a counter-terrorism strike to protect Americans.

 

" You can also sell counter-terror, it's much more logical. You can say

to the American people, we're only hitting these people that are

trying to kill our boys and the coalition forces and so that seems to

be more sensible, The White House thinks they can actually pitch this,

this would actually work. "

 

Digby summarizes the big picture:

 

It would seem that Cheney and the Big Money Boyz have decided that we

can't take any chances on a premature withdrawal from the middle east.

And that takes precedence over the possibility of things hurtling out

of control. Or perhaps, for inscrutable reasons, they want thing to

hurtle out of control. Maybe they are just like so many rich, short-

term thinkers who apparently don't love their children or their

country or they would care more about the future. (History? We'll all

be dead.) Maybe they're just insane. Whatever the case, hitting Iran

seems to be more likely than it has been up to now and the political

establishment seems to be either on board or paralyzed.

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

wargasm wargasm one two three

pit bull, pit bull, one two three

wave those flags high in the air

as long as it takes place over there