RSS
Using PayPal
PREPARING FOR WAR WITH IRAN: AN UPDATE ON SY HERSH'S ARTICLE
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Jan 28 2005, 9:10AM
Remember the EP-3 spy plane incident with China? That is the time I got to debate Richard Perle on Crossfire about U.S.-China relations. We were spying on China from the air, testing their radar systems as well -- something all major nations do.
But while spying, and testing of defense systems, is a normal, humdrum fact of a world with too many military systems aimed at each other -- testing a potential foe's systems very aggressively can trigger war quickly.
Apparently, Hersh's story on our preparation for war with Iran is dead on target. Speaking of targets, the USAF is aggressively testing Iran's air defense capabilities in a "dangerous game of cat and mouse" according to this UPI story.
Here are the first grafs:
The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.
"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.
"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated,'" an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict.
In the event of an actual clash, Iran's air defense radars would be targeted for destruction by air-fired U.S. anti-radiation or ARM missiles, he said.
I'm off to Montreal to hear what the Canadians think of the military exploits of its big neighbor to the south.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - WOOLSEY WATCH ITEM & SOME QUESTIONS FOR OIL EXPERTS» Next Article - ISLAM KARIMOV: AMERICA'S FRIEND AND THE NEXT SADDAM HUSSEIN
The air-defense tagging is pretty common, as you point out, and not really worthy of much comment. The revelation that we're using Mujahedeen-e Khalq forces to infiltrate Iran, I'd say, *is*. Using an Islamomarxist terrorist group, no matter how skilled at infiltrating a target nation, is asking for trouble down the line, especially since MEK is roundly hated by Iranians otherwise not inclined to support the clerical government. It also won't help strained relations with Europe, since France shut down its longstanding protection agreement with MEK a few years ago.
Welcome to Canada, Steve. :)
Speaking as a Canadian, and one who's been closely following American politics for the last 3 or 4 years, I have to say that the current course seems very reminiscent of British colonialism. Conquer a country, install a friendly government, and exploit its resources.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that the Taliban and Saddam are gone, but there's such a thing as "appropriate response"... you can use a shotgun to kill a fly, but there are other ways to do it which might be less alarming to the people around you. In fact, if the U.S. had simply not installed the Taliban and Saddam in the first place, that would have been even better.
The world stood with the U.S. after 9/11, but that support has faded away. Why? Because the U.S. is doing nothing to capture Osama. This hasn't been a "war on terror" since 2002. If Bush wanted Osama captured, then he would already be dead or in custody. Do you think Pakistan could reasonably have denied America the ability to cross its border? 150,000 troops crawling through the hillside would have made it very difficult for Osama to hide. Something else is at play here, obviously, and it makes the rest of the world very nervous. Some believe it's American expansionism, some believe it's oil, and others believe that W was just finishing his daddy's job. Whatever the reason, the U.S. started an unprovoked war with another nation... something that hasn't happened since Iraq invaded Quwait. It should scare the hell out of any reasonable person, and, indeed, it does.
The "flowers and flag waving" thing was/is just a way to sell the war to the folks at home. I'd guess that Bush et al. knew exactly what sort of reception they'd receive. You can get your country behind you if they believe that they're fighting to liberate another country, and that there'll be no messy post-war drama.
The Bush whitehouse is like a used car salesman. They'll tell you what you want to hear, but their goal is just to get you to drive off the lot with your money in their hands. Sadly, American soldiers are dieing for their lies.
Of course this is all alarming, but not unexpected, news. It is interesting, though, that so much is being revealed by those who know what's happening. It's indicative that they have grave reservations about the administration's course and hope the public will rouse itself from its stupor long enough to put on the brakes. A vain hope.
In case anybody missed it, I recommend "Will Iran Be Next?" in the Atlantic Monthly. The author got a bunch of Iraq hawks together and wargamed a confrontation with Iran.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904C.shtml
Their conclusion was that any military action against Iran would probably be disastrous, but that the administration had to at least pretend that it might go to war with Iran if we had any chance of preventing them from going nuclear.
I'm hoping that Bush is just bluffing -- in much the same way that I'd hope the ground wouldn't hurt if I fell off a cliff.
In reguards to the situation in Iran Condoleezza Rice said in an interview that "I think this is something that we can resolve through diplomacy."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1106882872022
I can't say if this is just a diplomatic pose (we are willing to be reasonable), or if this is the first sign of the US 'carrot' to the stick of a military strike. I hope it's the carrot.
I think it's pretty clear that Iran is next, and while without a doubt, a nuclear armed Iran (at least with it's current leadership) is a real threat to middle-east stability - I'm worried that (as noted in the aforementioned Atlantic article) any pre-emptive action will only serve to further destabilize the region.
Hersh's article pointed out - in it's brief statement that alleged US incursions for target identification - the administration's intentions. And I think the subsequent public acknowledgment of the "Strategic Support Branch" (while harkening in name back to Wild Bill Donovan) really shows that a serious war plan is already under development.
Perhaps some in the Bush administration actually
believe that Iraq will quiet down after the
elections on Sunday. But even the Bushies and
their generals are making public statements that
suggest that the violence and death toll on
US forces will not stop after the election.
Given that the US military is stretched occuping
Iraq, it seems highly unlikely that large scale
ground forces will be committed to a military
adventure against Iran.
But US military forces probably could bomb a
significant number of nuclear power/refinement
sites and perhaps send in special forces to
finish the job on the ground and then get out.
To the extent that the Bushies are planning
anything other than striking a pose to try to
get the Iranians to toe the no-nuke line, I
suspect that a strike is what is being planned.
The problem is that such a strike would have the
political effect of propping up the "Marg Bar
Amerika" (Death to America) faction in Iran.
Which would assure ayatollah power for the
foreseeable future.
By concentrating on the wrong war, in the wrong
place at the wrong time, the Bushies have left
themselfs (and the western world) few
attractive options.
Ian Kaplan
Cakewalk Ken believes if I remember rightly, that Iran WILL get nuke plants (but we can somehow persuade them to abandon weapons like maybe a non-agression pact or something), and that we will not invade.
Invade Iran? NO nuclear-armed country has ever been invaded or attacked (excepting that 1981 strike by Israel against Iraq's nuclear program, which did not involve a nuclear weapon).
I think we are attempting the same thing that Israel did -- take it out before it is completed.
When you find yourself labeled as part of an Axis of Evil, you get your butt in gear and get the mother of all deterrents -- a nuke. NK - done. Iran - check. Iraq - no nukes. Who gets invaded?
Elementary, my dear Watson...
"Speaking as a Canadian, and one who's been closely following American politics for the last 3 or 4 years, I have to say that the current course seems very reminiscent of British colonialism. Conquer a country, install a friendly government, and exploit its resources."
Speaking as an American who supported the war in Iraq, but finds most of Mr. Bush's domestic agenda worse than reprehensible, America isn't Britain, or Germany, or Rome, or [insert your favorite empire here]. There may be ignoble motives at the heart of this president's war, but they are comingled with and in my view eclipsed by the very noble goal of bringing democracy to a country, and a part of the world that has never known it. That is the revolutionary potential of America, and American power, and it is what separates this country from every other past great power.
There are those who will grumble - what about Saudi Arabia? and Egpyt? and Pakistan? - and pressure should be brought to bear on this administration for not doing *enough* to promote Arab democracy - to hold them to their word. Sadly though, much of the criticism from Democrats, and the left generally, has centered on the notion that Arab democarcy isn't possible, and even if it is possible it ought not be a priority of American foreign policy in the early twenty-first century.
Who are the cynics now?
Scoop,
It is a republican-generated myth about democrats or that evilest of all empires, "THE LEFT" saying "the notion that Arab democarcy [sic] isn't possible". That is a meme promoted by Jim Woolsey and others not rooted in reality.
The priority issue has to do with 9/11, al Queda and Osama bin Forgotten. Take care of that, break up their financial networks and then we'll talk about a PLAN for democratizing the entire middle east.
You know, a cynic might say that we liberated Afghanistan to enhance the world opium trade, and a cynic would be correct that the world opium trade has been enhanced in the aftermath of US actions in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean that republicans favor growing opium anymore than it means that democrats think the ME can't be democratized just because they think that invading Iraq WHEN and HOW we did was a colossal error in judgment that deserves serious scrutiny.
A blank page for a Phase IV plan equals hope is not a plan.
Supporters of the war need a reality check on that little tidbit. At a minimum.
Scoop, my man, I'll forgive your obvious late entry to the party, but, if you're going to castigate its guests, you would appear all the more wiser by learning something about them. A few of us won't grant you license to thinking you've found the Holy Grail without first examining your evidence.
Numero uno, there is nothing cynical about believing you don't militarily invade foreign nations that are of no threat to you, because trumping any other "reason" is the murder card.
Y segundo, my personal take on your ignoble motive/democracy goal is as follows: The evidence suggests the neocons finessed 9-11 and lied effectively enough to get the Chicken Littles(perhaps usted?) into believing all that Straussian garbage newspapers and television didn't attempt to expose. I wonder why.(please notice no question mark). Then, under impressive(to you) cover, up rolls big money Cheney to implement your "noble" goal which, of course is not war profiteering or oil(to you, otra vez) because you believe they have seen the light. In spite of this nation's past history at acting like the very "empires" you claim we are not, the Revelation(can you get an Amen!) will now carry us out of our cynical state and post-haste through democratic creation. Seeing the light will do that. Hallelujah!
See ya after services. And don't embarrass the congregation by wearing that silly ball cap backwards. That's what youth does. Oh, sorry. Whatever makes you comfortable.
The US doesn't have forces to go into Iran. Even a massive aerial bombing could take days, if not weeks, to significantly reduced the well-dispersed, underground Iranian nuclear facilities. In the meantime, Iran could easily create many troubles just by mining the Ormuz Strait (it would be funny to see where goes American patriotism with oil at $80 barrel). Not to mention Teheran's ability to interefere in Iraq. I honestly doubt the current Administration could even think about that, but with these people nobody knows.
Regarding US love for democracy, unfortunately I come from a country that had for 40 years a dictator committed in the fight against "the Jewish-Masonic-Marxist plot" (and, as all we know, there are a few Masons and Jews in the States). OK, what did the US do? Building its largest European airbase in that country. So, please, don't talk about democracy. We're all too old for that.
I know Stock Options for Soldiers was started as a jest & chastise, but look what happened.
What about Futures for Iran????
I'd buy in.
"It is a republican-generated myth about democrats or that evilest of all empires, "THE LEFT" saying "the notion that Arab democarcy [sic] isn't possible". That is a meme promoted by Jim Woolsey and others not rooted in reality."
Maybe. Maybe not. In any event when did the Democratic Party's standard bearer in last year's election ever mention the words "Arab" and "democracy" or even "Iraq" and "democracy" in the same sentence? Certainly not during his convention speech. Certainly not during the debates. Certainly not during his stump speech. Really, not anywhere.
My point is simple. If we're going to have a war on terror (and I'm certainly open to the idea of not having a war on terror at all...more about that in a moment) we need to recognize that the root cause of Islamist terrorism against America is our continued enabling, codependent relationships with repressive Arab and Muslim regimes (look at the opinion polls in the Arab world for more about that.)
Once people understand this basic point (as the neoconservatives and liberal hawks on one hand, and paleo-conservative, libertarian, and left- isolationists on the other hand do), they recognize that there are effectively two reasonable options, to aggressively bring democracy to the Arab and wider Muslim world, or to develop energy independence, shore up our border security, and distance ourselves from that part of the world.
Of course, the liberal internationalists who dominate both the Democratic grassroots and elite, would have us hunt down al-Qaeda and its offshoots even while continuing our enabling and codependent relationships with repressive Arab and Muslim regimes, and therefore doing nothing to effect the root causes of Islamist terrorism against America. The Democrats talk a lot about "perpetual war" these days, but its their favored foreign policy, not that of the neoconservatives or the isolationists that would more likely bring said "perpetual war" about.
If Democrats, and the left generally, doesn't like the idea of democratizing the Arab world by any means necessary, then they need to propose an alternative that will *end* the threat of Islamist violence against us rather than simply reducing it, and for all the reasons I've outlined above that alternative is more likely to be isolationist (at least vis a vis the Muslim world) than internationalist. And if they want to throw in a radical restructuring (ie localization) of power and economic activity in this country (as the greens and libertarians want) then perhaps I'd be game.
As it stands, the current Democratic compromise is neither politically nor strategically workable.
Howcan we claim we are creating an outpost of democracy in the Midle East when there are already democracies there? There is absolutley no reason to think Islamic people are going to be inspired by the sight of Westerners invading an islamic country and creating chaos ther even if the chaos eventually resolves itself into someting somewhat democratic. islamic people are much more likey to be inspited by the sight of home-grown democracies like Turkey, lebanon, and Yeman, or governments which are growing democratic institutions like jordan. Also if the source of terrorism is the support given by the US to terrible governments like Saudi Arabia, then the solution should be to dissasociate ourselsves from those governments. Invading Iraq has absolutley nothing to do with separating from Egypt or Suadi Arabia.
The inspiration behind the war inn Iraq is an ideolgy that has nothing to do with real world politics or the real world aspirations of pwoplw in the Middle East. it's a dellusion.
Please excuse the typos. I have trouble seeing the lettering onthis blog well enough to edit effectively.
"Oh, Scoop. I've never heard any liberal internationalist say such a thing.
"by any means necessary""
And neither have I. That's my point. Liberal internationalists haven't had much of anything to say about democracy promotion in the Arab and wider Muslim world, by military or any other means, and certainly not by any means necessary.
"Meanwhile, in the real world, liberal internationalist have been talking about democracy in the ME for a while. Just not by invading countries. See the CEIP website for details."
Name me one time John Kerry stated that Arab democracy was a foreign policy priority. Name me one time he even mentioned it. And beyond Kerry there isn't a single Democrat in Washington, or otherwise in the upper echelons of the party, save Joe Lieberman (who lost a good portion of my affection after coming out in favor of torture), who is publically identified with democracy promotion in the Arab and broader Muslim world.
And with respect to your snark about interventionism, democracy could not take root in the Arab mideast while Saddam Hussein remained in power. His ouster was a necessary prerequisite, and that ouster wasn't going to happen without American intervention.
Oh, Scoop. Still as fiery as ever. Look, oddly enough, there are lots of Arab countries out there. And equally strange, John Kerry is not the world's only liberal internationalist.
Yeeeeah for Scoop Democrat!!!!!
And as for "Sy" Hersh ... he writes pretty mediocre fiction!
"And equally strange, John Kerry is not the world's only liberal internationalist."
So what are you saying, that John Kerry is not the high priest of the new world order, administering a vast network of powerful and secret transactions on behalf of the knights templar, illuminati, and the greys, from a secret perfumed bunker in Hyannisport?
Reader Comments (27) - post a comment