Hersh/New Yorker/U.S. Ramping Up on Iran

[Rohirrim]

“There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”

[Bronco Bob]

Just avoid any plans on visiting the Holy Land for the next couple of years.

Here was something else interesting from the article:

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

{I guess they finally figured no one would buy the WMDs stories anymore}

This was pretty good too:

“There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

[alkemical]

media blitz on iran?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign.

Yep.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...won't get fooled again."

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-hawk.JPG

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Take this with as many grains of salt as you must...

Bush wants diplomatic end to 'Iran problem'

(But Chucklenuts said essentially the same thing before he invaded Iraq, didn't he?)

Mon Oct 1, 2:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush wants a peaceful end to "the Iranian problem," the White House said Monday after a fresh report that the United States is looking at possible military options.

"The president has said that he believes there is a diplomatic solution that we can use to solve the Iranian problem. And that's why we're working with our allies to get there," said Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Perino refused to comment on an article in The New Yorker magazine about alleged US preparations for war except to express frustration with its unnamed sources and with other US media outlets for reporting what the piece said.

"We don't discuss such things. What we have said and what we are working toward is a diplomatic solution in Iran," she said.

"What the president has also said is that as a president, as a commander in chief -- and any commander in chief would not take any option off the table -- but the option that we are pursuing right now is diplomacy," said Perino.

The magazine reported that the White House had asked the Pentagon earlier this year to redraw longstanding contingency plans for a possible attack on the Islamic republic amid concerns over its nuclear program and allegations of aiding fighters who target US troops in Iraq.

The New Yorker, which cited anonymous sources, said that Bush told the US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, a few months ago that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across Iraq's border and that he had British support.

At that point, the magazine said, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that Washington needed to proceed carefully because of diplomatic outreach to Tehran, and Bush ended up telling Crocker to warn Iran of retribution if it continued to interfere with US-led efforts in Iraq.

"I'm not going to comment on that," said Perino. "I'm not going to comment on any possible scenario that an anonymous source continues to feed into (investigative reporters Seymour) Sy Hersh. I'm just not going to do it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071001/pl_afp/usirannuclearwhouse_071001180122

[W*GS]

I wonder if these numbnuts realize that applying more pressure to Iran of this type will only solidify the will of the Iranian people to support their government.

Ratcheting down the attack plans and the rhetoric will do more to weaken the generally-not-popular Iranian government than the sabre-rattling.

[SoCalBronco]

Like I said before, I really hope our (GOP) congressional leaders dont stand idly by as these guys destroy the party just because they have a hard on to attack Iran. The Senate Minority Leader and the House Minority Leader need to take a trip up to WH to tell those folks if you move there, we'll jump ship on other fronts (i.e. Iraq and/or impeachment). It needs to be made clear. It needs to be firm. STFD on Iran or else we'll let Waxman and his band of vipers do their thing with little resistance. Iran would be a disaster for this country, The results would be catastrophic. They'll go in there under the authority of the WPA, have their leeway for 60 days, at the end of the 60 days it will be a mess and we wont be able to simply pick up the pieces.

[Rohirrim]

How can Bush tell the American people he is pursuing diplomacy on the one hand while refusing to talk with them on the other? Doesn't he realize how ****ing stupid that sounds?

Has it occurred to any of these dumb ****s in the WH that if you fire missiles into Iran, they might decide to mine the Straights of Hormuz? Or fire missiles into tankers blocking the Straights? Do they even think of this ****?

[Bronco Bob]

How can Bush tell the American people he is pursuing diplomacy on the one hand while refusing to talk with them on the other? Doesn't he realize how ****ing stupid that sounds?

Has it occurred to any of these dumb ****s in the WH that if you fire missiles into Iran, they might decide to mine the Straights of Hormuz? Or fire missiles into tankers blocking the Straights? Do they even think of this ****?

I was about to ask the same question. Do they think Iran is going to
sit idly by and do nothing in retaliation like Saddam when Israel bombed
his nuke plant? Maybe they will, but Iran could do a lot of damage
if they wanted to. In asymmetric warfare anything goes. What's
to say Iran won't try to wipe out the oil supplies by targeting the
Saudis and Kuwait's oil fields. Can you imagine what that would
do to the economy if we could no longer get oil from the ME?

[alkemical]

How can Bush tell the American people he is pursuing diplomacy on the one hand while refusing to talk with them on the other? Doesn't he realize how ****ing stupid that sounds?

Has it occurred to any of these dumb ****s in the WH that if you fire missiles into Iran, they might decide to mine the Straights of Hormuz? Or fire missiles into tankers blocking the Straights? Do they even think of this ****?

This is a good example of doublethink as illustrated.....

also, i think they (those whom want war) are banking on those actions.

[alkemical]

I was about to ask the same question. Do they think Iran is going to
sit idly by and do nothing in retaliation like Saddam when Israel bombed
his nuke plant? Maybe they will, but Iran could do a lot of damage
if they wanted to. In asymmetric warfare anything goes. What's
to say Iran won't try to wipe out the oil supplies by targeting the
Saudis and Kuwait's oil fields. Can you imagine what that would
do to the economy if we could no longer get oil from the ME?

Iran could use china's assistance and bourse the oil market(s).

FUBAR