January 19, 2005
@ 04:36 PM

The New Yorker has an article by Seymour Hersh entitled THE COMING WARS: What the Pentagon can now do in secret where he discusses alleged plans the US administration has for invading Iran in the near term. To article is scary reading but the part that had me the most stunned is the following excerpt

In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. "We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it."

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. "Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement," the consultant told me. "The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse"—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

"The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed," said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. "You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated." Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, "will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime."

This sounds suspiciously like the same reasoning that claimed that Iraqis would welcome the US led invasion with open arms. I know the saying "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is a cliché but this is getting ridiculous. Maybe someone should get these folks a copy of DJ Green Lantern's Shade 45: Sirius Bizness mixtape and put on track 10 where Immortal Technique opens up the second verse with

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam,
But that's bullshit i'll show you why it's totally wrong,
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight,
It'd be warfare through Harlem and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or white americas dream,
I'd be fightin' for my peoples survival and self esteem,
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south my nigga,
I'd be fightin' to be keep the occupation out my nigga,

It doesn't take an expert in Middle East history with a Ph.D to figure this stuff out. The continual waste of life and resources going on in the Middle East due the Bush administrations misadventures completely turns my stomach.


Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:01:02 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Wise up Dare, that's info-warfare directed at you. Is it worth it to you to sacrifice your first-born for Bushocracy in Iran? If you're not, then you don't even need to see through the propaganda. Resist!
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:46:52 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Iran is making huge stride toward nuclear warhead coupled with long range ICBM.
We aren't talking about Western Civilization here, we are talking about the mother country for the sahid. The theocracy that rule Iran is the same that gave its blessing to people strapping a bomb on themselves, go out to the busiest section of town and press a buttom.

Do *you* want them with nukes? I live in Israel. I certainly don't want to see this scenario. Israel already took action to prevent an Arabic country from become a nuclear power (Iraq, 1981, Operation Tamuz).

Iran scares me much more than Iraq, at least you could count on Saddam to care for himself.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:45:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Before you let your stomach turn, you might look into just how accurate Hersh tends to be. His brand of journalism seems to follow a very simple patter called "making stuff up"
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:55:57 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I'd rather Israel did not have nukes. I'd rather Pakistan not have nukes. I'd rather NK not have nukes ... You're in quite a pickle there Ayende. If pitting MAD against the sahid is not rational (after all, you've got quite an arsenal there) perhaps self-interest should dictate that you leave. Please don't come here crying wolf with bogus claims of ICBM's.
Enough blood has been shed for lies. Ya basta.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:17:49 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Personally, I'm more afraid of Israel with nukes (which it has) than I am of most of the other countries in the region with them. Why? Because I think Israel would actually use them on another nation and then claim it was justified as "self-defense."

As to Iran, the WMD card doesn't go too far anymore. They may be developing nukes. They may not be. I'm certainly not going to trust Bush and Co. to tell me the truth there. After all, there were WMD in Iraq, right?
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:31:41 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Personally, I'm more afraid of Israel with nukes (which it has) than I am of most of the other countries in the region with them. Why? Because I think Israel would actually use them on another nation and then claim it was justified as "self-defense."

Umm - are you insane? Have you paid any attention at all to the kinds of attacks that the PA commits daily? Israel responds to those far, far less drastically than the Allies did during WWII.

Heck, look at it logically. If Israel were prone to use nukes, don't you think that they would have before now? Prior to the mid-90's, not a single Arab/Islamic power had nukes. They used conventional means to take out 1 target in Iraq in 1981; if they were as nuts as you seem to think they are, they would have nuked the entire region right after the fall of the USSR. Apply some logic, for goodness sakes.
Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:10:16 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Does Mr Robertson doubt that hawks in the Administration propose attacks to prevent Iran from going nuclear? The lowly Israeli's, as admitted by Ayende, did such to Iraq. Does he doubt that the Administration's comeon for the American audience is to end the theocracy in Iran? Instead Mr. Robertson attacks the messenger. Perhaps he could assist me, by providing some references, in coming to the conclusion that Hersch is "making stuff up." Otherwise he risks the charge of hypocrisy.
Israel is complicit in the tragedy of the Palestinian conflict going some time back; it is enabled by it's self-produced and provided war materiel. Their domination of the occupied territories is backed by those nukes and guerrilla warfare is the response. Daily, Israel is winning the title of aggressor.
Mr Robertson is far too confident in the sanity of Israel's leadership. Does he doubt that Israel could use a bunker-buster to destroy an underground weapons cache? Am I to hold simultaneously that Israel threatens to act preemptively but is trustworthy? No, no Mr. Robertson, hegemony demands no bounds.
Friday, January 21, 2005 8:46:26 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
"It doesn't take an expert in Middle East history with a Ph.D to figure this stuff out. The continual waste of life and resources going on in the Middle East due the Bush administrations misadventures completely turns my stomach."

Apparently it does not b/c all those ME experts have done squat. What else turns your stomach Dare? Apparently not the UN oil-for-food scandal? Apparently not the genocide STILL going on in Darfur? Apparently not the UN troops raping and abuse the very people they were suppose to protect? I don't recall much if anything from you on these subjects. I guess if it isn't the US doing something "bad" in your mind, its ok with you (and your stomach).
Saturday, January 22, 2005 6:16:01 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I think the Iraq was not really about WMD, oil, or even liberating the people of Iraq. The Iraq war was mainly about Iran.

Iran's nuclear weapons program will destablize the entire balance of power in the middle east, within the next 1 to 3 years. Now, pretend that Israel destroys Iran's nuclear program in a surprise air attack this summer.

Iran's response will be hampered, because the U.S. has strategic military bases on both sides of the Iranian border. Instead of invading Israel, Iran could only rely on the United Nations for revenge.

And, of course the United States will support Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 9:54:12 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
The problem I have with these arguments is that they don't offer an alternative. The neocons have decided that America's only hope for continued global hegemony is to carve out a military sphere of influence in the middle east. As hard as this may be to swallow, I do not see any of the critics offering a better alternative. If you want America to just "lay down slow" and die off with minimal fuss, just say so. But if you think America can cling to global dominance *without* fighting China and all of the proxy threats like Iran and Korea, then you are either crazy or a genius. And unless the critics can explain some better way (and a realistic one; not some pipe dream like "get American kids to study harder") for America to stay on top of the heap, then it's a waste of time debating. America is the homeland for many people, and the people will fight for their own "survival and self esteem". While there are plenty of guilt-ridden quislings who would endorse policies that lead to an Argentina-style meltdown and national suicide in preference to (gasp!) occupying a foreign land, it is a mistake to assume that America is not nationalistic.
Sunday, February 6, 2005 10:07:58 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
If what you quoted is an examples of what you are reading, I can see why your stomach is turning. Perhaps a perusal of some mil blogs and reading a few letters from some troupes will give you a better perspective of what is going on, why we are there and calm your stomach. To top it off and put it all in perspective a review of why we are there would also be a good idea. If you did this you would be far better informed then say Barbara Boxer, who admitted to Condi Rice the other day she had not read nor did not know what was in the declaration of war, and such authors as what you quoted. All Senator Boxer did was go on and on about WMDs. Now either she is totally uninformed or is using war for political gain. Now thats stomach turning.
Comments are closed.