Part 1 of an analysis of Seymour Hersh's "The Iran Plans"

Overview

There is a very real possibility that George W. Bush is officially out where the buses don't run.

On the heels of the Joseph Cirincione column discussed in Iraq, Iran--it's all the same to the Bush Administration comes an article by Seymour Hersh ("The Iran Plans") on the same topic. As Kevin Drum pointed out, "As usual, Hersh's piece is based almost entirely on anonymous sources, so take it for what it's worth." However, if only half of what is in Hersh's article is true, then Bush and many others need to be isolated from all buttons, triggers, and sharp objects.

Hersh's article is worth reading in its entirety, in part because it does set out legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran achieving nuclear status and the reasons why every effort must be made to keep that from happening. The article is also worth reading because of Hersh's track record. As I heard in a report on BBC Radio shortly before 5:00 GMT yesterday morning, Hersh has a record of accuracy going from matters in Iraq (especially Abu Ghraib) all the way back to the Vietnam War. In other words, while Hersh relies a great deal on anonymous sources, the information he gets from those sources sometimes turns out to be correct. Then again, others have made a case as to why Hersh's work should be read with at least one grain of salt.

Let me restate something:

...I am not making a sweeping, all-inclusive statement that military action against Iran should never be considered...What I am saying is that under the present circumstances--caused almost entirely by the Bush administration's Iraq cluster f***--military action against Iraq is an amazingly stupid option.

And in light of Hersh's article, I will add the following: In no way should the Bush administration--as currently comprised--be allowed to be in charge of any military action against Iran.

With the foregoing in mind, I will quote seven excerpts from Hersh's article and add my commentary thereto. The subsequent post will do the same for five more excerpts from "The Iran Plans."

Excerpt 1

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.

This is a point I raised in Iraq, Iran--it's all the same to the Bush Administration. I think this is the true #1 goal for Bush, and the nuclear issue has provided the best possible reason to pursue it agressively and defeat any objections--in much the same way that 9-11 was used as a reason to justify a decision that had already been made (this topic will be covered in a later post at Iraq: the missing link in the war on terror?).

Excerpt 2

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

(emphasis added). I agree that Iran is trying to get the bomb and that every effort must be made to prevent that from happening. The italicized portions of this excerpt, however, give me great concern. I hardly think that Bush's successor, whether Democrat or Republican, would lack the courage to aggressively try to stop Iran's nuclear objective. I do not believe that his successor, Democrat or Republican, would lack the courage to do what is necessary. It sure seems to me that the only thing George could be referring to is military action, up to and including full scale war.

And Iran is going to be Bush's legacy? I thought Iraq was supposed to be his legacy. Now, I realize that this comes from one of Hersh's anonymous sources and is hearsay to begin with, but I can see how this could be true. Iraq was supposed to be the proof that Bush's pre-emptive strike and Burning Bush doctrines are righteous and right. Instead, Iraq has proved only that the Bush administration is a bunch of unrealistic, incompetent ideologues. Wait...let me clarify: they are exceeding competent--at being unrealistic ideologues. Bush needs something big to save his "legacy," and I can see how he would think that Iran is his last chance.

Excerpt 3

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

Remember, these are the same geniuses that said 1) Saddam had WMD, 2) Saddam could attack the U.S. with WMD, 3) we would be greeted with flowers in the streets, 4) Iraq's oil would pay for the reconstruction, 5) that the occupation would last no more than six months, and on and on and on. What in the world makes them think that their "belief" about Iran is correct? More to the point, why should anybody trust them?

Excerpt 4

This excerpt relates to quotes from Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush.

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.”

First, taking the position of "do what we want or face a military attack--and we will not compromise" is not what I call diplomacy. This further indicates (as discussed in Iraq, Iran--it's all the same to the Bush Administration) that a decision has already been made to attack Iran.

And even if the decision has not yet been made, this "diplomatic" stand almost makes the decision inevitable. This is another example of what I mean when I say that the Bush administration often takes actions that leave us with no options or no good options. I will discuss this further in relation to Excerpt 8 in the following post.

Excerpt 5

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.”

(emphasis added). Bush's focus has always been Iran? What a big, steaming pile of crap. If this person really exists, if this person really is a military planner, and if this person actually said this, this person should not be allowed to plan shit. In fact, this person should not even be allowed to plan when he next takes a shit.

Let's do a quick review. Before the Iraq war, Iran--not Iraq--had a nuclear arms program. Before the Iraq war, Iran--not Iraq--was an established state sponsor of terrorism, primarily through Hezbollah. Before the Iraq war, Iran--not Iraq--had established training camps for Al Qaeda (this according to Michael Ledeen, a prominent neocon pundit who writes for the National Review). And Bush was so focused on Iran that he invaded Iraq. Give me a break.

Excerpt 6

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran."

Once again, this indicates that the #1 goal all along has been regime change.

Beyond that, I would agree that the hearts and minds of Iranians is important. However, anyone who thinks "control" of an entire nation's hearts and minds is feasible is smoking the same stuff as the premise people from Excerpt 3. Moreover, militarily attacking a country is not a good way to win over hearts and minds. We only need to look back to Iraq and "shock and awe" to know that lesson.

Excerpt 7

The Pentagon adviser (on the war on terror) said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

Here is another anonymous source, but if these statements are true, this goes back to something I asked in Iraq, Iran--it's all the same to the Bush Administration, namely "Does anyone honestly believe that limited air strikes would result in regime change?" Any claim by the Bush administration that any strikes against Iran are going to be "limited" has about as much credence as the claim that Bush is working really hard at diplomacy. But hey, that's the neocon way of operating--lie about your true intentions and do something that goes way beyond what you said.