Hersh: Israeli bombings a prelude to US attack on Iran

[welshTerrier2]

In the following article, Hersh explains the relationship between the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and bush's plan to attack Iran ... the article is very long; the more you read, the worse it gets ... Cheney wanted to use Israel's attacks on Hezbollah as a "trial run" for Iran ... He believes Hezbollah's underground bunkers were designed by the Iranians and that bombing them would provide useful feedback on what to expect in Iran ... he also believed the bombings could build support for the US from "moderate Arab states" like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan that he hoped would see radical Islam's support for Hezbollah as the source of the instability in the region ... the result: now they hate us even more! the neocons are absolutely insane in case anyone wasn't absolutely sure ...

we know war with Iran is coming soon and yet we seem powerless to generate a national dialog on the issue before it does ... where is our voice on the national stage? who in the Congress is sounding a warning against the coming madness? does our party support this war? where is the opposition? war with Iran will be devastating to all involved ... and yet, the march to war continues without debate ...

source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

The Middle East expert said that the Administration had several reasons for supporting the Israeli bombing campaign. Within the State Department, it was seen as a way to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah. He went on, “The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy.” <skip>

The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military cooperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force. <skip>

Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. “If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can’t pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million,” Armitage said. “The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.” <skip>

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said. <skip>

The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.) <skip>

A former intelligence officer said, “We told Israel, ‘Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.’” <skip>

The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,” he said. “It’s an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.’s strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out,” he said. “Cheney had a strong hand in this.” <skip>

[Stinky The Clown]

1. If this was intended to get info on Iran's bunkers, it also allowed Iran..

.... to test Western offensive capabilities - specifically Israel's, and by extension/extrapolation, ours.

I really think the neocons believe their bullshit that we're fighting people who live in caves and cook on campfires, eating food they catch.

Note to Neocon Assholes: There are NO cavemen anymore. Our enemies are at least as sophisticated as we are. What they lack in weapons they make up for in smarts and devotion to task. They are far better at waging asymmetrical warfare than we are at combating it.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "allowed Iran to test Western offensive capabilities"

that's true as long as bush doesn't use nuclear weapons ...

these neocons are insane ... it goes beyond totally disagreeing with them; they really are insane ...

[bananas]

2. He was on DemocracyNow! this morning

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255

Monday, August 14th, 2006
Seymour Hersh: U.S. Helped Plan Israeli War Plans, Cheney "Convinced" Assault on Lebanon Could Serve as Prelude to Preemptive Attack on Iran

[katinmn]

4. Thanks for the heads up. DN! is always on the scene.

[welshTerrier2]

6. Link-TV carries DN at 11:00 am et

i'll be tuning in ... thanks so much for the info ...

on edit: oops ... sorry ... meant to respond to bananas ...

[katinmn]

3. I have the very same questions, welshTerrier2

we know war with Iran is coming soon and yet we seem powerless to generate a national dialog on the issue before it does ... where is our voice on the national stage? who in the Congress is sounding a warning against the coming madness? does our party support this war? where is the opposition? war with Iran will be devastating to all involved ... and yet, the march to war continues without debate ...


If there is anyone in Congress sounding the alarm against the march toward war against Iran I would guess it would be Dennis Kucinich.

The reason this topic hasn't entered into the national dialogue is that that the media is too busy helping the Bush Admin build a case against Iran, just as it did with Iraq. Facts be damned.
Notice that everytime CNN or MSNBC mention Hezbollah, they follow it in the same breath with "weapons supplied by Iran."

[welshTerrier2]

5. the major Dem '08 candidates?

has even one of them counseled against war with Iran? or are they all listening to the "Iran almost has nukes" nonsense? they all like to talk about the "need for diplomacy" but they don't seem to want to counsel against another war ... going into Iraq was easy and look at the disaster that's become ... does anyone actually believe anything positive could possibly come from attacking Iran? it is truly madness ...

and once again, the "facts are being fixed around the policy" ... all of the hearings about "faulty intelligence" leading up to the invasion of Iraq have accomplished absolutely nothing ... the checks and balances in our intelligence community are being completely bypassed, AGAIN, and any data that are published are nothing but propaganda coming out of Cheney's office ...

what good is a two-party system if this is the result?

[katinmn]

10. It is easy to make "monsters" out of countries that the BushAdmin

refuses to engage diplomatically. That is some strategy!

[Donna Zen]

12. One popular 08er

Made an AIPAC funded trip to Israel. During a speech he said that the US might have to bomb Iran. As I understand it, the speech was quite bellicose. No one talks about it at DU. I guess that is part of the code of silence.

General Clark has said that there are 3 options. As for the the third attacking Iran, he has said that there is no "end game" for that option. IOW, he said, that after you bomb Iran do we think that they will say: Okay, now we like you. He has talked about the neocons ginning up this war before Nov. and he has said that the Dem. had better "damn well be ready" for it.

With the failure in Lebanon, perhaps this will not come to pass. One can only hope. And there is some hope:

Beyond a Binary Choice: Thinking Through the Unthinkables on Iran

This is from Steve Clemons blog (scroll way down):

Yesterday, I returned to Washington, D.C. after helping to organize a thought-provoking session on Iran jointly sponsored by the New America Foundation, Aspen Strategy Group, and Aspen Institute. The meeting lasted three hours and was intense.

I'll be drafting a report for the meeting, which after review by the principals involved, will be made publicly available -- but which will also help articulate the areas of investment -- financial and intellectual -- needed in generating options OTHER than bombing Iran or, alternatively, acquiescing to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

The comments in the report will not be attributed to any specific person -- Chatham House rules -- but the participants in this useful meeting, in which one prominent participant said "there was much heat -- and yet some light" (which I take as both a compliment and as hopeful), included:

Harvard University's and former Clinton administration Pentagon official ASHTON CARTER, General WESLEY CLARK, CSIS Senior Vice President and Aspen Strategy Group Director KURT CAMPBELL, Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School Dean ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, Newsweek International editor FAREED ZAKARIA,

There were many other people attending, including some real jerks. So in answer to you question: yes, things are being said. I'm watching Clemons blog closely for his promised notes.

[Clark2008]

14. Can I guess which "popular" 08er this might be?

Is he Southern?

Was he a governor?

I really don't know. I'm guessing.

[welshTerrier2]

15. OK ... how about 3 questions ...

1. who made the bellicose speech and do you have a link? ... let's "talk about it here on DU"
2. do you have a link to Clark's statements on Iran or am i off to google heaven?
3. who is this Clemon's guy? i'm not familiar with him ...

[Donna Zen]

21. WT2, You have a PM

Clemon's is a beltway foreign policy type whose blog, the Washington Note, is on my list. I read Clemons, not to agree or disagree with him but because his information is very accurate and his sources deep. Clemon's business, as I understand it, is the organization and presentation of foreign policy meetups. Recently he has taken on a partner (I can't remember his name) who is too far to the right for my taste, but maybe, it's all about the business.

Anyway, Clemons has been working with Soros. I listened to a speech and Q & A by Soros today. He sounded quite sane. Soros and Clark are with the International Crisis Group, so their message about Iran is nearly identical. Neither see bombing as the solution. Nevertheless, we are back to the same brick wall that confronts us every time: because we don't set foreign policy, we can only react to bush's fuck up foreign policy. Bush wants a war with Iran. Listening to any of the cables (I only get CNN) will tell you that this horrible choice is being ginned up. Clemon's recent meeting is an attempt to preempt this by finding a different answer.

I'll look through some transcripts to answer question #2.

[Clark2008]

13. Yep. Wesley Clark has:

Today, Syria presents an historic opportunity for the United States. Rather than just threatening Syria, we should talk directly to Bashir Assad, encouraging him to lay the foundations for economic and political opening and gradual transformation, cut off insurgent access through Syria into Iraq, and end the sponsorship of Iranian-backed terrorist institutions, in return for stabilizing his administration during the ongoing UN investigations.

And this in turn, will give us greater traction against Iran's steady march toward nuclear weaponry. But actions on Iran are urgent. We should join now - right now - in opening a new round of talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option. We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857

Clark also told Faux viewers on two separate occasions that we cannot march into the Middle East and occupy Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran unless they want their children to spend the rest of their lives in a military uniform: we simply don't have the manpower to occupy all these lands. He was met with blank stares, but I digress.

Now, the corporate media don't consider him a "major" candidate, but most Democratic Party voters seem to - if you just the polls taken on Democratic websites. Of course, we know the corporate media never wants to speak about intelligent, non-corporately-funded candidates who could tap into the Republican base in the South and mid-West.

[welshTerrier2]

16. "met with blank stares"

that's just too funny ...

let me say this in response to you: 1. i appreciate what Clark said 2. the link you provided seems to be more than 6 months old ... if Democrats are going to STOP bush from just going ahead with an attack on Iran, it needs to be a sustained campaign ... Democrats should be speaking out against the risks to this country, the ME and global peace if bush unilaterally attacks Iran after "fixing the facts around the policy" ... we cannot afford to have our party leaders addressing the issue once every 6 months ... and my point here is NOT just about Clark ... hopefully he's been speaking out regularly on the issue and you just provided one good example ... but the party is invisible ...

what is Harry Reid's view? Pelosi? Schumer? Biden? Edwards? Dean? Hillary? Bill? or any of the others? can you hear the kind of clarity from any of these prominent Democrats in the statement you cited from Clark about the dangers of attacking Iran? if anything, their statements have seemed more along the lines of "we can't let Iran get a nuke" ... that's a bit anemic, wouldn't you say?

[Clark2008]

18. He has been - mostly in his commentary on Faux

Here's the links so you can watch it for yourself:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/01/wesley_clark_delivers_another_wow_performance.php

And they're more recent (late July/early August) than the other post.

[beachmom]

19. I do distinctly remember hearing Kerry condemning Bush

about Iran this year -- I can't remember the question but he just rolled his eyes and said Bush was engaging as usual in "cowboy diplomacy" instead of the real work of dealing with Iran.

Thanks for the heads up to the poster -- I'll be looking forward to that article when it comes in the mail.

[welshTerrier2]

20. was this the statement you meant?

Kerry: "It is a stark reminder that it's long overdue for the community of nations to take strong and decisive steps to make Iran cease its support for terrorism."

[KKKarl is an idiot]

7. ..

We will see Cheney a lot more at the fore-front of this war because it will make sense for him to be elected president to continue the fight he started. What a plan this is?

[Peace Patriot]

8. We've seen several apparent conspiracies of silence among our Democratic

leadership. One of the most puzzling has been their MIND-BOGGLING silence about the takeover of our election system by Bushite electronic voting corporation (Diebold, ES&S)--during the 2002-2004 period--using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code to "count" all votes, with virtually no audit/recount controls--a coup that was engineered by the two biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney. An "Iron Curtain" was placed over this and the 2004 election fraud evidence not just by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, but also by our Democratic Party leadership. The subject was taboo in Democratic circles--and even on leftist blogs that wanted the blessing of the Dem establishment--until very recently (throughout the pre-election and post-election periods during which something could have been done about it), and even now it is hardly having the discussion (and action!) that it deserves.

Now this, what appears to be another conspiracy of silence to prevent debate on the Bush junta plans, going back years (way before 9/11), to invade and dominate all Mideast oil fields--a region-wide occupation of the Middle East that will involve mass murder on a scale even greater than we have seen in Iraq, and indefinite warfare--as well as the threat of WW III and the end of all life on earth. (Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark" about the impacts on our planet's atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange.) The parties with a vital interest in the Middle East situation with nuclear weapons are Pakistan (on Iran's border), Israel, China, Russia and the U.S. EU countries and India could also be threatened by a wider war.

And I am wondering now if these two Democratic Party silences are related. We also saw silence and collusion by many Dems on the invasion of Iraq. Can it be that the Democratic Party threw the 2004 election in order to let the Bush junta do this war? It is a shocking and sickening question--because of it makes a lot of sense. It also erodes hope for restoration of our democracy--so much so that I hesitate to formulate it. But in the interest of truth and reality--so badly needed to devise an effective strategy--I feel I must.

[Sparkly]

11. Reminder: Cheney in January 2005....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24677-2005Jan20.html

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that Iran is a top threat to world peace and Middle East stability, accusing Tehran of sponsoring terrorism against Americans and building a "fairly robust new nuclear program."

In an interview aired on MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning" show a few hours before President Bush's inaugural address, Cheney warned that Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities if the United States and its allies fail to solve the standoff with Tehran diplomatically.

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said. In 1981, Israel sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," he said.

I said at the time that it seemed to me they want Israel to start it.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "they want Israel to start it"

i don't have much to base this on but i just can't see Israel attacking Iran directly ... Israel needs to find a way to bring regional peace ... they need to find a way to diffuse all the wars ... if the hardliners win, and the Israeli neocons "go puppet" for the US neocons, Israel will eventually be destroyed ...

the weapons that all players in the region possess grow more and more deadly everyday ... having a superior air force or bigger bombs will not be sufficient to protect the Israeli civilian population ... I see Israel with a very, very tiny window to "wage peace" ... is it possible to achieve? i haven't got a clue ...

their current course will get their country, and other countries in the region, literally wiped off the map ... Israel apparently has been willing to do bush's (really cheney's) bidding up until now; i just can't believe they would be stupid enough to raise the stakes by directly attacking Iran ... i sure hope i'm right ...

[oasis]

22. Hersh went on MSNBC's "Hardball" today. Tweety acknowledged him

for his "street cred" as an investigative reporter.