Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.
The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."
In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."
"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.
Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)
Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."
"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.
Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.
He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.
"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.
Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.
Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.
The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)
"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."
He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."
Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."
And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:
"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."...........
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
well we've got so much extra money layin' around, why not become mired in another middle east country. Only one additional war every couple of years?--seems like they're moving pretty slow. As soon as elections are over in Iraq, I'm sure everyone will live happily ever after---so we"ll need something to do.
hb
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
We don't have Bin Laden and the Iraq war is far from over........sort of silly and dangerous to spread ourselves so thin.
I understand and tend to agree- but what is more scary than a Nuclear Iran- sometimes no action isn't a possibility. Maybe this will finally wake us up and then we might understand that tyhis will end up being a world war and should be fought as one!!!
__________________
If you can read this- thank a teacher; if your reading it in English- thank a soldier..." Unknown
"We dedicate our training so that our enemy may have the chance to die for his country." John Baxley
since when are world wars fought b/c "the bad guy" has the potential to attack? Why don't we invade all of the republics of the former Soviet Union--Don't they all have nuclear weapons? We probably don't consider them a threat today
We better wait 'til tommorrow
hb
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
We didn't invade USSR because they had no propensaty to attack us without cause- guess 9-11 proved that not to be true of Muslim fundamentalist huh!!!!!!!
__________________
If you can read this- thank a teacher; if your reading it in English- thank a soldier..." Unknown
"We dedicate our training so that our enemy may have the chance to die for his country." John Baxley
Actually, I was making a comment on the constant shift of geo-political alliances with the mention of the former Soviets --I was hoping that you would be able to deduce that.
You still did not answer the first question. Perhaps you were too busy putting a list together of all the countries that contain Muslim fundamentalists or at least governments influenced by muslim fudamentalists or at least governments with future potential nuclear capabilities that are influenced by muslim fundamentalists, so you can give it to the president.
What about Egypt?
I got news for you. 9-11 was not like Pearl Harbor. There, we were attacked and could retaliate against a specific country. Now, we face a threat that is more globally mobile with entirely different tactics. A presumption that we can stop it by invading any specific country or countries is ludicrous.
I believe that we WERE on the right track with afganistan, but now have been bogged down b/c of the fact that we have committed to remain in Iraq until ??????? can anyone even say what exactly will determine our departure from there??
Iraq is a mess---Why would we want to create another?
hb
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Now, we face a threat that is more globally mobile with entirely different tactics. A presumption that we can stop it by invading any specific country or countries is ludicrous.
I believe that we WERE on the right track with afganistan
This would appear to be a contradiction.
Although the terrorists exist in multiple countries, there are certain countries that are sponsoring and paying for the terrorist activities. Afghanistan was bin laden's HQ and a logical target. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and the PLO all continue to support and assist terrorism in some way.
Of all of these countries, Iran is the single one most ready for a democratic uprising and the only one trying to create nuclear weapons. A majority of Iranians like the U.S., do not like the mullahs' religious dictatorship and would love to overthrow their repressive government. It really would not take much to assist them in overthrowing their government and establishing some type of democracy. Although you might not know it, even leaked stories (read planted) like this one create a huge reaction in the mullahs and the Iranians who want to revolt. There truly is more than one way to skin a cat and Bush is a lot slyer about this stuff than many Americans and a lot of the world give him credit for.
Syria is currently housing and supporting most of saddam's remaining henchmen. Syria is also a country that simply cannot withstand too much psyops nor the possiblity of the U.S. backing an uprising. If iran has a successful rebellion, you'll see Syria just fold up their tents and get out of the terror business on a national/governmental scale. They will know they're only a heartbeat from being next on the hit parade and simply won't want to risk it.
The PLO is following another terrorist leader and is simply too stupid/lazy to realize that a lot more of the world besides Israel is beginning to figure this out. Israel is preparing to kick some butt and Lebanon will catch that Israeli hint quickly. And last but not least, Saudi Arabia is slowly figuring out that they really can't have their cake and eat it too. Things are catching up to them and they are on shaky ground.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I got news for you. 9-11 was not like Pearl Harbor. There, we were attacked and could retaliate against a specific country. Now, we face a threat that is more globally mobile with entirely different tactics. A presumption that we can stop it by invading any specific country or countries is ludicrous.
True- but we are a far superior force than we were 60 years ago and capable of conducting this war- the problem with Iraq is that we are not fighting it with the same determination as we did the world wars(which was my point all along). War suck and are terrible and people, including innocents die-if we had fought the nazi's the way we are the insurgents and Iraq- Hitler would most likely have still been in power. When you bypass large cities to avoid civilian damage- you have these footholds we are fighting now. So why don't we just pull out and stay within our borders- then maybe everyone will just like us- oh, that's right- THEY STARTED IT- and now at least the "MESS" is over there in the Middle east and not here. I know you think your funny and probably think your smarter the most with your cracks about my "list"- but the fact remains that if we don't start doing everything possible to meet and confront these terrorist- then We will all be on a "LIST"- a list of those countries that are rulled by these fundamentalists.
__________________
If you can read this- thank a teacher; if your reading it in English- thank a soldier..." Unknown
"We dedicate our training so that our enemy may have the chance to die for his country." John Baxley
U.S. Planning for Possible Attack on Iran?
