Jump to content

U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran


 Share

Recommended Posts

New Yorker article says Congress authorized up to $400 million for covert ops in Iran

 

Journalist Seymour Hersh says program is being staged from Afghanistan

 

U.S. officials decline comment, deny the U.S. is launching raids from Iraq

 

Iranian general says troops are building graves for invaders in the event of war

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

US "preparing the battlefield" in Iran

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

An Iranian flag flies outside the building containing the reactor of Bushehr nuclear power plant, south of Tehran.

 

 

corner_wire_BL.gif

 

 

White House, CIA and State Department officials declined comment on Hersh's report, which appears in this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

 

I certainly hope and pray this journalist is a crackpot. :scared:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope that this isn't true. And if it is true, it really stinks that it is being reported. Couldn't that put the people who are on these missions in danger?

 

Shouldn't the real question be "why are we conducting missions such as this when our military is so ridiculously spread thin?"

 

And Sy Hersh is pretty much on the ball all of the time. The guy has the best sources in the business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the real question be "why are we conducting missions such as this when our military is so ridiculously spread thin?"

 

And Sy Hersh is pretty much on the ball all of the time. The guy has the best sources in the business.

He usually knows what he's talking about. Let's hope he's off the mark on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure sounds like the Bush Administration is (once again) not listening to its own advisors and by pursuing a 'strategy' (if one can even call it that) of gut instinct over informed calculation:

 

 

The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat.

 

 

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.”

 

 

The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”

 

 

From:

 

Preparing the Battlefield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Bush-basher, and because of the military people that I have talked to, I don't necessarily think that we need to be out of Iraq right now. And there could be reasons to go into Iran.

 

But I will be honest, I am starting to think that it is possible that GWB wants to be right so badly, that he is being led by his stubbornness. It is starting to get old....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None at all? Not even one...

 

I'm not saying go in guns blazing immediately or anything like that. The fact is Iran, IMO, is a very serious threat to the US, and if the intel says they aren't cooperating in regards to nuclear weapons, I see no problem with us having a military presence there.

 

 

When will you be deployed?

 

You have no idea about my personal situation, so don't go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.