Hersh: Bush administration shifting Iran attack plans: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted September 30, 2007 2:52 PM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva

Seymour Hersh, the prize-winning journalist who has written of the Bush administration’s inside planning for an assault against Iran, returns with a new look in The New Yorker magazine at what he calls a shifting strategy -- a changing of the "target.'

While the Bush administration insists that it wants to resolve its differences with Iran diplomatically – yet holds out the caveat that “all options are on the table'' – Hersh says the strategy toward Iran has shifted from one that justifies a strategic assault against the country’s suspected developing nuclear weaponry program to one of attacking the forces and chain of weapon-supplies that Iran is providing for insurgents inside Iraq.

“The strategy is, it's a targeting change,’’ Hersh said on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer today. “We're threatening Iran. We've been doing it constantly. But instead of saying to the American people, instead of saying internally it's going to be about nuclear weapons, it's now going to be about getting the guys that are killing our boys.

“We're going to hit the border facilities, the facilities inside Iraq we think are training terrorists,’’ Hersh asserted “We're going to hit the facilities we think are supplying some of the explosive devices into Iraq. This is the administration's position.’’

Hersh also maintains that Bush will not leave office without settling the question of Iran’s nuclear designs – while Tehran insists it is developing only nuclear power, the U.S. and allies see the beginning of a bomb, though still several years from fruition, most outside analysts agree.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, also interviewed by Biltzer today, suggested that the distinguished journalist, Hersh, has been “wrong’’ before about his predictions of U.S. designs for an invasion of Iran. But he did agree – “it is a fact,’’ he said – that Iran and others are supplying weapons inside Iraq, not perhaps so much as a means of destabilizing the government of Iraq but as a way of confronting American forces. Iraq, he says, has told Iran to reconsider its strategy.

Here are some excerpts from the interview with Zebari on CNN’s Late Edition, followed by excerpts from the interview with Hersh:

ZEBARI: On the one hand, Iran has a very clear policy in supporting the government politically and supporting the political process and majority rule government. This government is friendly to them.

On the other hand, really we see evidence that there has been intervention by Iran and by others as well, maybe not directly against the government, but to bloody Americans or make lives more difficult there.

And this is what we have been telling them. I mean, this is the wrong policy. If you think that by doing this you can keep the prospects of a confrontation away, this can only provoke the Americans more and more.

So really we have been very honest in speaking with them and trying to encourage them to deal constructively with the government, with the security, to stop this intervention.

And we are planning a major meeting in Istanbul in early November for Iraq's neighbor, plus the P5 and the G8, and we will -- going to confront all of our neighbors with evidence, with facts that this is what Iraq requires from you to stop meddling, to support the government in good faith.
Asked about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s close relationship with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the two pictured holding hands as they walked into a room together recently:

ZEBARI: Well, Wolf, Iran -- our destiny is to live with Iran. It's our largest neighbor. There has been longstanding relationship, religiously, culturally, socially between the Iraqis and the Iranians for many years. And Iraq and Iran need each other.

We're going to live there, you know, for the rest of our lives as two countries. This is difficult to explain to the American public. On the one hand, to be friends to the United States and on the other hand to be friends to Iran. And these things actually are understandable in the culture of the Middle East.

Maybe in the American culture it's difficult to explain it to you. But that is the reality. And I remember General Casey, before leaving his mission in Iraq, I said, General, what did you learn in Iraq? He mentioned this point, that now I understand how you Iraqis could be friends to us and at the same time friends to the Iranian.

And that is the reality of that part of the world.’’

ZEBARI: The Iranians always have been supportive, I mean, in their words and statements. And I attended many of these meetings. In fact, they went as far as if you feel that Iran should talk to the United States, its archenemy, that it could benefit the Iraqi people, we'll do it for your sake.

I mean, they have made these statements in my presence. But, in fact, the Iranian leaders have been saying that they are not interfering, they are supporting, but the evidence on the ground -- this is what is worrying and bothering.

I mean, the support for certain militias or certain interventions, and that's why we tried to establish a subcommittee between the United States, Iran and Iraq to deal with this issue of the flow of weapons, of EFPs technologies, of infiltrators. This is what we are trying to work, but the process, because it's the beginning, really we don't have the high expectations...

BLITZER: I just want to make -- minister, I just want to be clear. What you're saying is the Iranians may say the right things but their deeds don't necessarily follow their words.

ZEBARI: Well, this is, in fact, this is the problem. From us, many of this evidence has been investigated by the multinational force by the Americans. In many cases, the Iraqi authorities have not been in the loop.

But I suspect really -- I mean, from the evidence we have that there has been intervention. Not only by Iran, by other countries as well. And this is a fact. And that's why we are going to Istanbul with clear minds, with a clear set of needs to confront our neighbors and to put them on the international spotlight to live up to their commitment and to match their words with their actions.

And here are excerpts from Blitzer’s interview with Hersh:

On the Bush administration’s message on Iran:

HERSH: Well, they've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be, they're a nuclear threat. Iran is going to have a bomb soon. We have to do it.

Sort of the same game we had before the war in Iraq. And what's happened is in the last few months, they've come to the realization that they're not selling it. It isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat, certainly as they were about Iraq. There's some skepticism. So they switched, really.

On a change in U.S. strategy for Iran:

HERSH: Well, the strategy is, it's a targeting change. We're threatening Iran. We've been doing it constantly. But instead of saying to the American people, instead of saying internally it's going to be about nuclear weapons, it's now going to be about getting the guys that are killing our boys.

We're going to hit the border facilities, the facilities inside Iraq we think are training terrorists. We're going to hit the facilities we think are supplying some of the explosive devices into Iraq. This is the administration's position.

On Hersh’s assertion that there is a “significant increase in the tempo of attack planning”

HERSH: Well, publicly, they've castigated the Revolutionary Guards. The language is increasing, just as you heard the president say to the -- last August in the clip you showed.

On the inside, the CIA has really been ramping up very hard. There's something called the Iranian Operations Group. We had the same kind of a group for the Iraqi war. Before the war in Iraq, we had an operations group. It's suddenly exploding in manpower. And they've been going around, just dragging a dozen people here, a dozen there. They built it up into a large, large operational group.

I'm told also, I didn't write this in the article, I'm told that the National Security Council inside the White House is focused much more on attacking Iran and what's going on in Iran than it has been before. There's been a significant increase on the inside.

On the possibility of a military strike on Iran

BLITZER: Now, you've been writing about this possibility of a U.S. military strike on Iran for some time.

HERSH: A year-and-a-half.

BLITZER: It hasn't happened yet but you're convinced before the president leaves office it might happen?

HERSH: Oh, well, there's no -- that's easy. I don't know. What I do know -- what I do know -- is he wants to do something. He will not leave Iran in a position to be a nuclear power, in a position to be the threat. ‘’

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were start a campaign against Iran. It's part of the war on terror. Then on to Greece.


So we're going to bomb 'suspected' weapons. Sounds a lot like 'weapons of mass destruction' to me.


Well Hersch has been wrong (whether deliberately so or not) in recent years.
Whatever, though, most folks with any common sense realize that sooner or late or Iran is going to have to be dealt with, one way or another. Hopefully what can happen is that enough pressure can be put on Iran and to help those within Iran that do seek freedom and democracy, with little or no U.S. or some sort of coalition military action necessary.


"We're going to hit the border facilities, the facilities inside Iraq we think are training terrorists. We're going to hit the facilities we think are supplying some of the explosive devices into Iraq."

Doesn't sound like an invasion of Iran to me at all. Sounds like Iranian soliders training terrorists within Iraqi borders. Military action within Iraqi borders sounds like SOP to me.


They're recycling that old fraud Seymour "Foam at the mouth" Hersh?


Bush does not want to leave the White House with any oil left outside Halliburton's control. Except our dear friends the Saudis.

They are full-bore crazy in this administration.


"They're recycling that old fraud Seymour "Foam at the mouth" Hersh?

Posted by: Bruce | September 30, 2007 5:02 PM"

I have met Hersh, he doesn't foam at the mouth.

Bruce, tell me one incorrect fact reported in 'Mai Ly 4' ??


Is there anyone out there that still believes anything coming from the Bush/Cheney WH?

It's all spin all the time. Spin in the service of unbridled greed. Nothing else.


athena,
The only crazy people are the one's that think that Iran is "harmless" or can be dealt with diplomatically. The Useless Nations, er, U.N. has already shown how completely ineffective it can be in Bosnia, Rwanda, and with Hussein's Iraq. If anything, I think the Bush administration has showed far too much restraint.


" The only crazy people are the one's that think that Iran is "harmless" or can be dealt with diplomatically. The Useless Nations, er, U.N. has already shown how completely ineffective it can be in Bosnia, Rwanda, and with Hussein's Iraq. If anything, I think the Bush administration has showed far too much restraint."

-nah, i think YOU are the crazy one


Bomb the Iraq supply bases, bomb the nuclear facilties. Four days and its all over. No invasion, no nothing, no problems.

If they want nuclear technology, bomb them with nukes and let them try to study that!


Emerson, you can add Sudan and Darfur to that list of ineffective or no action taken by the UN.

And I love the OIL comments again. Oh and Halliburton too! Ohhhh, the double-headed monster to the Lefties: OIL and Haliburton.

Hey Lefties: did you know that under the Clintoon administration, Haliburton received billions upon billions of NO-BID contracts???


Of course, you hawks out there could care less, if a 'limited' nuclear strike on Iran brings a full break in relations with Russia (along with world condemnation) followed by a unified Islamic jihad against American forces in Iraq, and of course Israel, and then Bush being 'forced' to invade Pakistan and/or Syria, and . . . here we go, folks, right into WWIII (otherwise known as Armageddon).


Iran hasn't attacked anyone since Darius III (about 250 bce). Meanwhile, the same JINSA/PNAC crowd who've been howling hysterically about Iran and President Dinnerjacket, are the SAME folks who lied, smeared, and fear-mongered us into the Quagmire that is Iraq.


There's absolutely no evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, absolutely no evidence that it is involved in attacks against the U.S. President Maliki of Iraq was recently quoted as saying he has seen no evidence of Iranian involvement in attacks against Iraq.


it appears there are still a lot of cowboys out there who did not get the message we set forth in 2006, to wit: We want no more wars, no more threats of wars, and especially none promoted by the current administration. It lied us into Iraq; it's trying to do the same into Iran. Indeed, the USA seems incompetent when it comes to Iran---incompetent because irrational. Remember Mosadech and the Shah and how we created the Iranian "revolution"? We lost our heads.We are about to do so again.


The US will nullify any threat that undermines its lack of control in Iraq

Iran is playing its ace hand by looking to be placated it is ready to step into the vacuum if and when the US pulls out of Iraq. Can we really see that happening?

I believe the US is ankle deep in a quagmire that she blundered into

Only a major event on a global scale can extract her now


Robert meet John D, also known as Johnny Brownshirt. He believes that the land of the free & the home of the brave would be better if we had consentration camps for those he disagrees with politically.

John D meet Robert. He believes that actually using Nuclear weapon is a viable 1st strike option.

Don't they restict access to computers at the Egin 'rest home' you guys live in?


I think I remember McCain singing (not very well) "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

I hope I find peace in my lifetime.


Cowboy Bob-are you related to Bush? Nuke Iran, no problems? I've had it with redneck attitudes. What do you think happens when oil hits $200/barrel and the entire Muslim world of 1 billion plus comes after us? More bombs then? Are you ready to enlist because there will be a draft after the insanity you call for!


We're going to hit the border facilities, the facilities inside Iraq we think are training terrorists. We're going to hit the facilities we think are supplying some of the explosive devices into Iraq."

Doesn't sound like an invasion of Iran to me at all. Sounds like Iranian soliders training terrorists within Iraqi borders. Military action within Iraqi borders sounds like SOP to me.

Posted by: Terry | September 30, 2007 4:49 PM


TrickleDown Terry,
Leave it to the goonish Republcants to not be happy with TWO failed wars, why not make it THREE failed wars, huh?

It's time to restart the draft, College Republicans first and after they're all killed off we can add old Republicans like Terry to the front lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inspkrGVbw


Attacking Iran will send the entire world into chaos. Where are the voices of diplomacy and reason? This is a very dark time in history when our rulers trample over the sovereignty of other nations in search of oil. We are in a spiritual crisis. Where is the Congress? Where are the people? This is a turning point in history and everyone seems to be asleep. Are there no leaders who can lead us out of this horrible criminal conspiracy?


Hey Lefties, didn't Barack say he would use nuclear weapons in Pakistan??

And I see we have the return of JJ, the dictionary's pictured example of sheer stupidity. By the way, JJ, it's spelled conCentration camp.


I hope they plan on attacking Iran and do it, they will feel the defiance of the shia like Israel felt from Hezbollah, and I'll be in Iran at the time hopefully I can taste the martyrdom I have yearned for so long.

DEATH to TYRANNY and OPPRESSION and all those who support it!!


They're recycling that old fraud Seymour "Foam at the mouth" Hersh?

Posted by: Bruce | September 30, 2007 5:02 PM

More bile from the RNC propaganda minister Bruce.

I not so sure the U.S. will attack Iran. I can't imagine what a hornets nest it would stir up in the Muslim world. God bless America, or what's left of it. Vote Democrat in 2008.


We're doing so well in the first two wars that you're eager to start a third? The four day "shock and awe" sequel bombing campaign proposed above might even sound somewhat appealing if you could actually shock and/or awe people who are willing to blow themselves to smithereens.

Fact is, if we attack Iran we'll end up fighting another guerilla war whether we like it or not. So if you war fans really want a new war, you're going to have to make some sacrifices. First, you'll need you to demonstrate your commitment to the cause by donating your share of the trillion dollars it will cost the US. If you can find 100,000 other idiots willing to fund your new middle east fiasco, you'll only need to come up with 10 million each. Chump change for big spenders like you, right? Then all you'll need is maybe 150,000 volunteers from the ranks of the keyboard commandos and young republicans to fill the manpower requirement. Good luck.


Seymore Hersch is a national treasure, and I trust his reporting (obviously, he has his limits). In my opinion, one of the first things Iran will do when the US preventatively attacks is to destroy Saudi Arabian oil facilities. If Bush sees a limited preventative attack on "terrorist training bases inside Iran" as a way to bait Iran to counter-attack, he is going to be surprised how fast this thing escalates. Ultimately, Iran must deture the US and Israel from using the country as a punching bag, and overreacting to a limited US preventative attack is probable. By the way, the latest war game in the Pentagon is reported to show the US can minimize economic distruption in the case of an engagement with Iran. Those Generals are always fighting the last war-we can't control the duration or intensity of any conflict with Iran, and any misconceptions to the contrary are extremely danger (i.e. suicide by fear of death).


What should Iranian people do now? We do not need nuclear bomb, neither nuclear power. We do not want this totalitarian government neither American invasion nor their bombs. We want to live with love and peace with each other and with the rest of the world. Iranians have been trapped between two crazy fundamentalist war-lovers, American neocons, and Iranian mullahs. Please help us out of this madness.



The US will nullify any threat that undermines its lack of control in Iraq

Iran is playing its ace hand by looking to be placated it is ready to step into the vacuum if and when the US pulls out of Iraq. Can we really see that happening?

I believe the US is ankle deep in a quagmire that she blundered into

Only a major event on a global scale can extract her now



Voice of America and Fiasco at Persian Service.
There is no need to attack Iran IF the Bush Administration pays attention:
Millions of dollars are spent in Persian Service of Voice of America but the end result is nothing but scandalous way of cockamamie management and programming.
It is hard to believe but the Persian Service which supposed to be an organization to convey the policy of the U.S. has become a free platform for hard-line terrorist group of communists who attack the United Sates!
I have the documents in writings to prove that these were done with the full knowledge of the management.
I used to work there and as I said before, I have all the documents in writings.
The manager is a woman called Sheila Gandji who can not read and write Persian. Therefore, in order to hide this shortcoming from the higher management, she has hired an eighty something man called Kambiz Mahmoudi who has a lengthy background as crook and in charlatanism.
You expect a doctor to be in charge of a medical clinic. You expect an engineer to be in charge of an engineering department. You expect a plumber to fix your plumbing.
So why do you expect a person who has no education in Iran and doesn't know the language of that country should be in charge of publicity, literature or politic for such position?
Sheila Gandji falsely pretended and presented herself as educated with background in journalism. These are absolute fabrications. Nobody in Iranian communities inside of the country or outside has any knowledge about her being a journalist, then and now.
Her partner, Kambiz Mahmoudi is a hateful and despicable person whose activities as crook are widely known through out Iran. Can't the U.S. government appoint somebody without such shameful background and baggage?
Don’t think that this is a personal vendetta.
Let me quote you a view from another media:
"The Iran Steering group concluded that much of the anti-American perspective that is broadcast is the result of decisions made by station managers in Washington D.C. and Prague. Sheila Gandji, the manager of Persian service has faced sharp criticism, particularly for her decision to stop VOA shortwave radio program in July, 2006 in order to focus on television broadcasts, which are more susceptible to censorship, since the government regularly confiscates satellites dishes in order to prevent the infiltration of foreign broadcasts."
This is not the only one. The mismanagement at the Persian Service of Voice of America is the subject of hundreds of sites and articles indicative of disgusts and ridicules in the world about VOA.
The bizarre situation at the Persian Service of Voice of America caused even the Republican Senator Coburn to write a long letter to President Bush about the fiasco there.
It is only in America where the government pays to be insulted. Really, why Voice of America is doing this harm to our nation?


Arash,

Even if you believe that American neo-cons are blood-thirsty, war-loving, oil-seeking fundamentalists, they would not take any action with an Iran that was cooperating with the world. They could not justify it even if they wanted a war. Remember it took 9/11 to attack Afghanistan, a war that 95% of America and a majority of the world supported. It took 12 years with 17 UN resolutions and Saddam doing everything under the sun (genocide, attacking neighbors, paying terrorists, using WMDs, threatening the world with WMDs, kicking out inspectors, shooting at our planes, attempting murder of a president, etc.) to get attacked. Also remember we were involved with more wars in the years prior to 9/11 and the evil neo-cons, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Somalia. These were not full scale ground attacks, but a “war” with Iran would not be either. The U.S. is in no position for that right now. If the Iranian government starts cooperating, the issue is over.

What should Iranian people do now, you ask? There is nothing the Iranian mullahs fear more than a counterrevolution by the dissatisfied, economically disadvantaged youth of Iran. Not an easy task, I know, but considering the majority of the country are good people, I know enough can be done for the government to at least feel intense pressure from within. Pressure from both inside and outside may be enough for the government to start cooperating.


The Prophecy says we MUST go to war with Iran!! We must fulfill the Prophecy!! It is our Christian duty!!


So they are just setting up the stage for Iran to get where we are now with Iraq. It takes years to get here. What was the first step? "Cooperation" with us. Not cooperation between them and us. There is no them in the equation. Next? Sanction the shit out of them. Next? Strategic bombing by a liberal president to remind them. Next? More sanctions. We keep setting the bar higher and higher (wondering why their not cooperating and what could they be actually rebelling against after sanctions and bombings). Then the neo-cons will say we did not do enough. We were too "soft". Iran might attack Israel. And low and behold the final piece is there. This time an attack on Israel will be redefined as a threat to our national security. (Boy if every country in the world used that argument against our actions on another country as a threat to their national security...) Final step. Document history, and human rights violations. Voila. We are in the same boat when a jejune president enters the White House surrounded by a new crop of neo-conservatives ten years from now with a weakness when it comes to foreign policy they won't mind making up the difference in.


We are being idiots and soon we will have to pay.


Posted by: John D | September 30, 2007 4:34 PM

He's been on the money more often than not. No journalist is ever right all of the time - except you, in your own mind. The whole Swamp is still waiting for you to post links to the magazines that you've written article for and have edited in the past - when will we see you produce them?

I'll take Hersh's word over anything you have ever written John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D. You see, unlike you he's a REAL journalist who backs up his research with PROOF.


John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D gets caught LYING AGAIN!

[quote]
Hey Lefties, didn't Barack say he would use nuclear weapons in Pakistan??

Posted by: John D | October 1, 2007 12:07 AM
[/quote]

Here's what he said, LIAR:

[quote]
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
[/quote]

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093852/


Hey Lefties, didn't Barack say he would use nuclear weapons in Pakistan??

Posted by: John D | October 1, 2007 12:07 AM

John D must be part of that drive-by media that's all the rage at Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the RNC.

SGK


On the Haliburton issue: It is irrelevant that Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton. This neither confirms nor denies whether Haliburton has operated ethically. What's the point of making this comment. I could easily conclude that Clinton is as politically corrupt as GWB. As if that were some sort of genius observation. Also, with our military already stretched thin, where would we get the resources to open another 'front'. You must recognize that at some point there is a fiscal reality. Keep cutting taxes while fighting bigger wars? How is that possible? You can just ask the Soviets how that worked out.


I stand corrected, BC. I was confused by all his various positions on Pakistan and what he would do. However, as your quote points out, he did at first say no nuclear weapons on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, but then said, "scratch that. There has been no discussion." So he isn't completely taking it off the table, or is he?? Anyway, the Clinton folks did hit him hard on that one.

But he did say he would invade Pakistan, of course which is a U.S. ally.


All-knowing Anonymous 11:37AM:

Interesting prediction on history repeating itself. Based on this, we would be attacking about 12 years after Sy Hersh told us an attack was imminent 3 years ago.

Questions for you:

1) When countries sign treaties, resolutions, agreements, etc. is there a “them” in the equation, or just an “us”?
2) Bill Clinton claims his biggest regret is not intervening in Rwanda. Do you agree with him, that we should have intervened?
3) Do you have a solution for an Iran with nuclear weapons promising to wipe other countries off the map, or are you saying there is no issue?
4) This new incoming crop of neo-cons (Jena Bush maybe?), will they also be dumber than a box of rocks, but genius enough to fool the whole world about Iran, and execute another 9/11, all for oil?


Ted 2:01 PM:

Yes, Ted it is an interesting take on history repeating itself. History is not entirely new to the concept.

1) When countries sign treaties, resolutions, agreements, etc. is there a “them” in the equation, or just an “us”?

Considering that these are non-binding (they are political agreements ) and we have pulled out from some of them to restock our arsenals while denying others nuclear power for energy it would seem that there is no us and them in the equation. Just us.

2) Bill Clinton claims his biggest regret is not intervening in Rwanda. Do you agree with him, that we should have intervened?

Can I ask why your asking me this question? You are comparing foreign policy ruled by idealism v. neoconservatism. Had Clinton been involved would it be enough if he stopped short of installing democracy through force in Rwanda. For neoconservatism it would not be enough and that is exactly why they backed Clinton only to the point they could agree, but no more, like Bosnia and Kosovo. Mocking any action as airy humanitarianism. In the case of Iraq they didn't agree for for the opposite reason. We were taking into consideration national interest but we did not take into consideration the people of Saddam. That is why they felt he was soft on them. Neoconservatism is liberal values like freedom democracy and now human rights (of the new neoconservative crop) and national security together. The whole premise is American, as a super power, should not stand back or stay still but export democracy and freedom making the military a forearm of foreign policy because democracy in the world makes it easier for American to keep that monopoly on that power by making it easier for the US to work through institutions like the UN IMF WB etc.

3) Do you have a solution for an Iran with nuclear weapons promising to wipe other countries off the map, or are you saying there is no issue?

No I do not have a solution for Iran with nuclear weapons, but I'm not necessarily overjoyed with the diplomatic sanctions and any air campaigns (should there be any) coming their way in the years to come. I would hope that we can get to the same level we have with other countries who have made similar comments like Pakistan and India and NKorea.

4) This new incoming crop of neo-cons (Jena Bush maybe?), will they also be dumber than a box of rocks, but genius enough to fool the whole world about Iran, and execute another 9/11, all for oil?

Jenna Bush? For all I know she is a conservative republican. She has really never talked about the war so it would be hard for me to know if she follows neoconservative foreign policy.

I don't think that they are dumber than a box of rocks by the way. Actually, they are entirely right that they're making history, and that history will judge them in the long run. They are not reacting to their environment, but applying an outlook on an environment in order to change it in the long run.

I don't think it is about fooling any one. I don't think they orchestrated 9/11. It is not all about oil. It is an approach that an event like 9/11 gave movement too. I don't agree with their approach. I don't see democracy being spread at the end of a gun.


Dear Ted, thank you very much for your response. Let me paraphrase our conversation like this:

I, as an Iranian, asked you all to let us know what we shall do in order not to be bombed. You answered that Iranian youth shall put pressure on their government in order for mullahs to cooperate with us.

Dear Ted, please, just for a second, try to change our positions in your mind, i.e. we Iranians ask you to change neocons, or we will bomb you. Does your solution sound civilized and humane? If our government is not a good one, what is the fault of the millions of civilians living in this country? They love their life as much as you do.

Of course, there are some crazy people in our government, like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, as I think is the case in your government, like Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, but what is the fault of our people. Why shall we suffer from their madness?

Thank you again Ted, but please try to put yourself in place of us. We are not too different from you. Maybe just our language, religion, and traditions are different. Nevertheless, all of us are human beings with our strengths and weaknesses. All of us want to live and enjoy our life.


Anonymous:

Thanks for responding. Although we agree on some things, disagree on others, it is clear that you have a perspective head and shoulders above the usual cynical “Bush lied for oil” crowd. This is all I ask.

I do not agree with “exporting democracy thru the military for power”, but I am not an isolationist, and believe that when situations arise like Rwanda, and yes, Iraq, the rest of the world should get together and handle it. First by diplomacy, then if necessary, by force.

I should probably expand on that, but gotta go! Maybe later.

By the way, I was just kidding about the Jenna Bush thing.


Arash,

I understand your situation. What you need to understand is that the “crazy neo-cons” in our government have not done or said anything different about Iraq and Afghanistan that the majority of our government, the majority of the American people, and hundreds of other countries (except for the corrupt ones) didn’t support at that time. The rest are now just playing politics.

Iran is not currently in the same situation, at least not right now. I wouldn’t worry about being bombed unless you work at a military base, a nuclear facility, or live with crazy mullahs.

Good Luck!


It is a shame that we have not learned from Iraq...Nor have we learned that Iran is not Iraq...After 54 years, Iranians not only have not forgotten the overthrow of Mosadegh by CIA, as they punished us for that by throwing us out of Iran and creating the first Islamic Republic in recent history...If we attack their country, they would not forgive us this time, not just for another 54 years but possibly for the next 540 years...and for many generations after us and our children's children would have to pay the price for years to come. Iranians have not attacked another country for hundreds of years: despite being very vocal against injustices in our world, they are extremely cultured...Not only would one expect them to use their missiles in such a confrontation, possibly turning all the Iraqi Shiite's against our forces there (maybe even millions pouring in the streets), a mass flashback in all middle eastern countries, impeding the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, etc etc ..but worst of all, Iranian people finally deciding that the American people, and not just Bush, are their enemies and fighting us and causing much damage to us for centuries to come...And if anyone here thinks that after such an attack that if someday a secular regime comes to power that Iran would once again become our friends, then, they simply don't know Iran and the great bravery and history of Iran as the first, the largest, and the longest lasting empire of all time...We attack Iran and we'll be awakening a sleeping giant...for today's Iran would seem sleeping compared to what is to come...MY advice: don't do it...Iran is not Iraq or Vietnam, or like anything we've ever seen...


Dear Ted, thank you for responding. Are you sure that just the corrupt governments did not support the "Shock and Awe Operations" in 2003? Do you really believe that your Government was less corrupt than France and Germany at that time?

Thank you Ted, for giving us confidence about not being bombed. I do not really know about the whereabouts of nuclear facilities. However, do you know that our "crazy mullahs" as well as our crazy President live in just ordinary urban neighborhoods? Do you know that some of our most important military bases are located in the middle of dense crowded cities? Do you know that some British war analysts predict that any kind of effective bombardment of Iran will have at least one million casualties?

Anyways, thank you for being so much respectful to check and answer my questions. However, remember that sending missiles and dropping bombs over civilians is not war, in its traditional meaning, it is a crime by any reasonable humane measure.


Arash, yes I agree with you that Bill Clinton committed crimes against humanity by dropping bombs in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq. And yes, by making regime change in Iraq official U.S. Policy in 1998, he is the chief of all neo-cons.

The countries in the UN that were not in favor of the war in Iraq were the same ones involved in the oil-for-food scandal. There were individuals from the U.S. who were also involved, and they are now being prosecuted. Perhaps you do not get that news over in Iran.

I would not support a war with Iran and doubt that it will happen. I do not pretend to know the plans or our government, along with the many other governments in support such as France and Britain, but I do know that any action taken would be precise with the least possible civilian casualties. If your leaders continue with their plans to “blow Israel off the map”, and support terrorists, a choice in humanity unfortunately may need to be made. Libya has made some smart choices in recent years and has benefited. Now North Korea. I hope that Iran that will do the same, and live in peace with it’s abundance of natural of natural resources and great people.

I also do not know if your mullahs are “crazy”. This is a term you used in your original post, and I guess you would know, since you live there and all.

What I do know is that the next time there is an earthquake in Bam, or anywhere else in the world, the U.S. will provide full support. That is what we do.


Iran war = another trillion dollars of AMERICAN (not UN countries) taxpayer money +reinstitution of the draft +more terrorism by underground jihadists.
Here is why: Current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing upwards of a trillion dollars (that's 1,000,000,000,000 or one thousand billions or one million millions of dollars) of American taxpayer money that could be put to better uses. They are also costing thousands of American servicemen's lives with many more still to come. More than 100,000 American troops are needed just to keep Iraq from falling into chaos. And finally, there are still thousands upon thousands of aggrieved, jobless, uneducated muslim youth waiting to blow themselves up wherever Americans can be found.
Conlcusion: We CANNOT AFFORD war with Iran or any other wars in the middle east for that matter, regardless of how badly our pride is injured. Give diplomacy a real chance.


Arash-
You are ben misled. Ted and other don't give crap about you, your feelings or what you think. They arrogance-as you might notice-is simply repulsive. They are people who believe that you should be changed regardless the reasons to attack and destroy your civilization, culture or religion. The only way to avoid confrontation with people like Ted is to give up your language, your religion, your culture. Even then, you'll be considered a second rate citizen due to your skin color or other attributes. They are wasting you well intentioned concerned and are chuckling with their hypocritical comments.
Every American know this.


Ahmad,

My intention is not to mislead, but to show different perspectives. It was clear that Arash was offering one point of view, so I merely offered an alternative (and yes, purposely exaggerated a couple words to further the point. Despite what you think, it appears Arash is more than smart enough to counter this). This is the purpose of blogs: alternative viewpoints. Thanks for offering yours.

May there be peace and prosperity to all countries, religions, cultures, languages, and skin colors.


The insanity of the "Neocon Nation" proposed attack on Iran cannot be underestimated. It seems that the one ton elephant in the room which no one wants to acknowledge is Russia. Iranian nuclear sites are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians; which could in effect be considered a declaration of war against Russia. But even if somehow the Russian problem could be circumvented the economic hell that could be loosed would likely cast the global economy in depression. For a "just the tip of the iceberg" preview of the madness of a strike against Iran read;

Day One -The War With Iran
by Douglas Herman.
http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm


MAth Whiz,

Those bombings I was talking about was INSIDE IRAQ. If Iranian troops happen to be there, oh well. Guess they were not supposed to be there.

I guess you haven't taken geopgraphy yet in 4th grade. What do you expect from public schools?


Dear Ahmad, thank you for your comment. I do not believe that I have been misled. Anyways, I agree with you that I am not familiar with American political atmosphere and debates. I choose to live in my own country, despite all of its problems, somewhat because of what you mentioned.


Dear Ted, thank you again for your response.

I just want to remind that it was not Bill Clinton, but George Bush the father, that dropped bombs on Iraq in 1991. In fact, Clinton was the only President of the US whose bombings, although I do not agree with, was in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Before Clinton the presidents of the US was either in support of enemies of Muslim countries or in support of some most unpopular governments in Muslim countries. In addition, George Bush the son was the first and the only president who entered into direct war with Muslims. The "War on Terror" is translated into "War on Muslims" here in this region, especially after Bush's referring to crusaders.

Ted, if you are interested in different viewpoints, please listen to my story.

I am 43. I grew up in one of the most pro-American governments of the world at the time, i.e. Iran at the time of the Shah. I have a Master's Degree in Engineering; have a good job, high income, good wife and family, and altogether a very successful life. My father studied in the US, from 1951 to 1961. He studied for five years in a high school in New York and for another five years in an engineering degree in University of Georgia. My mother has a BS in English Literature and taught English Language to Iranian high school students for years before her retirement. My brother, three of my uncles, and eight of my cousins are citizens of the US. I have traveled to most parts of the world and I love to have a visit to the States as a tourist.

I just want to say that I am among the top 10 percent of pro-western Iranians. I am not even in support of my government. I believe that Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their supporters are a shame for Iranians. However, if American, or any other foreign troops, dare to invade my country, I will let alone all of the above benefits, take a gun or even a knife and go to defend my people, my identity, my culture, my religion, and my country. I am even ready for suicide attacks in order to defend my people, not for killing tens of Americans but just for only one American. I prefer to die, to live in a country ruled by foreigners or by a puppet government come into power by foreigners. In addition, family values are very important here. If I die, all of my whole family will come for retaliation, even those American citizens. They will become walking bombs in your homeland.

Ted, Iran, or as they called it before, Persia, is completely different from Iraq or Afghanistan. Persia is one of the handfuls of countries, present in the world map from 2500 years ago. We endured Greeks, Arabs, and Mongols invasions, and finally defeated them. Most parts of our language and many of our traditions practiced in our everyday life goes back to 2500 years ago. I am not sure if you can imagine this or not, but believe it that people with thousands of years of history are somehow different from those with hundreds of years of history.

By bombing our country, you are just spreading seeds of hatred that will make life much harder for your children.


Does any body of you blieves that U.S. can attack I.R. Iran an it didn't do it till this day.They are terrifying I.R. Iran since 1979( revolution) and nothing happened till now, i think it is all about where is Israel nowaday in the region political map(middle east). You americans go and look after your economics and donot let the jewish people control you boys destineys.


Ted-
Are you asserting that France and Germany (who opposed the Iraq war) were involved in the oil-for-food scandal? There might have been individuals from those countries that were SUSPECTED of being involved as well as US officials. Now, because UN individuals from those countries are involved does not mean that the whole of France or Germany Governments are culprits. If this is the case, then the US Government-through it's UN officials is also guilty.
The US did not get an UN authorization to go to war against Iraq.
You are misleading when you say that the only countries that opposed the war were countries that were involved in the oil-for-food scandal! did you see how pathetic the list of the "Allied Forces" was?
1. Albania (126)
2. Armenia (46)
3. Azerbaijan (150)
4. Bosnia-Herzegovina (37)
5. Bulgaria (150)
6. Czech Republic (100)
7. El Salvador (380)
8. Estonia (34)
9. Kazakhstan (29)
10. Latvia
11. Lithuania (50)
12. Macedonia (33)
13. Moldova (11)
14. Mongolia (100)
You don't know the US Gov.plans, you say, but you know "...but I do know that any action taken would be precise with the least possible civilian casualties." Good one, military expert...what the the "least possible civilian casualties" again?
Ted, you probably were one the same people that were screaming from the top of their lungs that Saddam had chemical weapons and so on...and here we are...
By the way, Libya had nothing...the US and Libya's interests intersected at a point where: Libya needed the US to remove it from its Black List and provide cash and the US needed to show that it is a reasonable government.

You are misleading when you say that Clinton is a neo-con (that was a sneaky attack, by the way...nice try)


Anonymous-
You are making a very important point...The ONLY US Senator going around talk shows and talking about attacking Iran right now is Senator Joseph Lieberman who is an Orthodox Jew that seems more interested in Israel than his home state of Connecticut.
US citizens wake up before it is too late!


Arash,

Thank you for expanding your thoughts and telling your story. There is not a thing you have said that I do not respect. This is what the American people need to hear, rather than the hatred that is coming from the likes of Ahmad.

2 things:

1) When I referred to Clinton dropping bombs in Iraq, I was referring to 1998. Here is his reasoning:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Does this sound familiar? I do not like the Bush administration, and I did not vote for them. However, I do not blame them for all the world’s woes, nor believe they are as corrupt as the American Left would like the world to believe. I am also not a fan of the American democrats, who seem to govern based only on winning elections. Here are some quotes from them about the current Iraq war when it was “popular”, as opposed to what they are now saying:

http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/

This is why, when I hear talk of “neo-con” conspiracies, I consider many of them overly cynical, and I tend to react that way in return.

It may have been stupid to for Bush to mention “crusaders”, but I have seen absolutely no indication that the “war on terror” is a “war on muslims”. It is interesting that people hold on to his stupid quotes, but when he states respectful commentary about muslims it’s ignored.

2) America may only be hundreds of years old, but we are a nation of immigrants. We live and breath those cultures that are thousands of years old. In my neighborhood, dozens of cultures and religions are thriving, and over 100 different languages can be heard. I work with people from all over the world with different skin colors, and most make more money than I.

Good luck, and thanks for your thoughts.


Ahmad,

Why do you not include countries like Britain, Spain, Japan, and Poland in the "allied forces"? Is this intentional?

Prove that Libya had nothing, and it wasn't connected to AQ Kahn.

No, I am not a military expert, but there would be absolutely no purpose to harming more innocent civilians. I don't need to be an expert to know that.

Yes, it is a stretch to call Clinton a "neo-con". The point was that he was saying most of what the current "neo-cons" are being criticized for saying, and that was prior to 9/11.


Ted-
What did I say that was hateful?
You are the one telling Iranians that if their government does not shape up-to your liking-you'll go for a "surgical' bombing. This is after Arash informed you that the military bases as well as officials' home are in populated neighborhood. You are the one considering innocent casualties as a necessity; not I. You are the one for death, not I.
I think that Arash scared you when he said: "I am even ready for suicide attacks in order to defend my people, not for killing tens of Americans but just for only one American" and you are trying to pint your hypocrisy toward me...typical, dude!
I debunked your assertions and you cannot handle it.
Both Bush and Ahmadinejad are extremist...actually Bush has shown his more than Ahmadinejad: He talks to Jesus, Bush says.
We cannot accuse people of being "extremist", "fundamentalists", etc...while American leaders aspire to these same "values"...
By the way, Bush used "crusaders" in the White House garden on purpose-and acted as if he did not mean it-and YOU know that Ted. He needed to rally his fellow Christians to go and crush those infidels.
Ted, you cannot hide. The days of hypocrisy are over. You'll be debunked every time you try one of these stunts
yes, you may work with minorities and they may make more money than you...this does not mean that you like them...where is your rational, man?


Ted-
Yes, I left Britain, Spain, Japan, and Poland out of the list because everyone knows about the involvement of these countries; Bush does not stop talking about them! ONLY UK and US troop are fighting in Iraq.

Why do you say this: "No, I am not a military expert, but there would be absolutely no purpose to harming more innocent civilians. I don't need to be an expert to know that."?
Are you arguing with yourself?
Listen; I AM SAYING that even I surgical attack would cause unacceptable deaths. Hello?!Read my comment again.

Proof that Libya had nothing to lose in the deal it made with the US, please follow links: (there are much more out there).

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=115
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=127&language_id=1
Hope this helps.


Ahmad,

First off, your entire first post was filled with hateful generalities about ALL Americans.

Secondly, tell me where I said “shape up to my liking”, rather than cooperate with the rest of the world. Maybe “cooperate” is the wrong word here, but change whatever the guy is doing for the vast majority of the world, including yourself, and the majority of his country, to consider him a dangerous extremist.

Third, I can’t prove to you that I like minorities any more than saying I get along with them, eat meals with them at work, and celebrate their culture through food, music, etc. My condo building that I moved from recently was filled with a rainbow coalition of people, and we all got along fine. I hope for more of this in the future. What can I say?

Lastly, in reference to me being one of the ones screaming about chemical weapons in Iraq, considering Saddam had already used them on his own people, I considered it a strong possibility that he had them. I do remember discussing with my family that the speech Colin Powell gave at the UN was particularly unconvincing. However, the thing that swayed me (although Ahmad, you will never believe this) to supporting the war was the UNICEF report saying that between UN sanctions the Saddam’s murderous regime, 3000-5000 innocent Iraqis were dieing every month. To me, this is unacceptable. You could say that UN sanctions were bad policy, but they would have continued. You could say that human rights violations were happening in other countries, but when you add them into mix with all the other reasons about Iraq (24 reasons were listed in the war resolution), to me it was worth trying to stop. If humanitarian reasons were not true reasons for our government, then so be it, but they were for me…and it still is when I read stories like the following:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarcoMartinez/2007/10/01/marine_hero_the_5_things_i_saw_that_make_me_support_the_war/

This is why I do support intervention in places like Rwanda and Darfur, but not an attack on Iran. I’ve never supported a war where I thought more lives would be saved in the long run than lost. Call me naive, but not "for death".

The main fear for most Americans is not that Iraq or Iran would attack us directly (this would be more than insane), but that WMDs would fall into the hands of terrorists. This is the piece of the puzzle that needs to resolved. I am confident that it will be peacefully.

Goodbye and peace. Really this time – I need to get some work done!


Ted-
You say:
"Ahmad,
First off, your entire first post was filled with hateful generalities about ALL Americans."
This is false...read my first post again.
People like you, however, are different from ALL Americans. I LOVE America more than you can imagine. I've lived in America more than in any other country.
As a matter of fact; I am returning soon to the US where I own a house.

The FRIENDS of America advised her against going to war. The ENEMIES of America encouraged-and supported-her to go to war.

A friend would tell you to stop when you are on the wrong path; your enemy would clap for you to proceed.
Peace and Goodbye-


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "u" in the field below: