Journalist: US planning for possible attack on Iran

White House said it is riddled with 'innacuracies'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'
Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."

Now, the White House may be countering Seymour Hersh's report now but how long will it be till Bush officially announces we will be going to war with Iran? How many draftees (yes, you read that correctly) will it cost for them to find out that maybe they didn't have WMDs but instead nuclear power plants for their electricity? It's taken almost 2 years, and 1300 troops to make it clear that Iraq had no WMD. Do we really need to go through that crap again?

Hi Beatlewho,

Not that I doubt you, but would you mind supplying the link to that story? I checked CNN and didn't see it.


Thanks,

TIS

I saw this article on AOL yesterday.

TIS- it is a real story. All they are doing is getting information about what Iran is doing and what information if any they have to attack the U.S., it's bases or it's civilians.


I know this is going to turn into a huge debate but let me just say this. IF Iran does attack us and Bush didn't look into any information for it, then he would be wrong for knowing Iran is a threat and doing nothing to find out about it. Here he goes and tries to find out what's going on and he's still wrong.

Oh, I have no doubts it's a story. Yet, you know how certain things you have to "see in print" for yourself?? To me this is a pretty important, and I simply want to see it. :p

I'll reserve judgement until I know more about it.


TIS

I just figured MY WORD was good enough

all a man's got in this world are his word
and......oh nevermind :p


Are you reserving judement because you are thinking about coming over to the dark side

Hersh could be WAY off here, but regardless whether or not the people's opinions implied in this article are accurate, even putting this article aside, Donald Rumsfeld is a nut. So much of a nut, in fact, that I'd actually believe that the "advocation" Hersh provided from him is real, word for word.

Sorry, I forgot to provide a link for the first article. I can't find that link but I do have a link to a related story: Pentagon blast report

Good to see they are keping an eye on Iran and are prepared to combat them.

Just like we had our eyes on Osama. :p

And 4 years before that, we could have had our hands on him, but the leader of our country at that time turned down that offer because he had his hands all over something else!


Don Cardi

^ Are you reffering to Bill Clinton? True, the goverment of Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the Saudi Arabian government, which would in turn have handed him over to us, but Clinton turned down the offer... perhaps the situation was too complex for his taste.

And 4 years before that, we could have had our hands on him, but the leader of our country at that time turned down that offer because he had his hands all over something else!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I really would've trust Saudi Arabia with Osama. :rolleyes: BTW, who was it in 1991 that gave up the chance to get Saddam?

Saudi Arabia? It was Sudan that offered President Clinton Usama, 2 or 3 times mind you!

And to answer your second question : The United Nations! But then again, you were just a babe in diapers, so you wouldn't remember that!

Don Cardi

Saudi Arabia? It was Sudan that offered President Clinton Usama, 2 or 3 times mind you!

And to answer your second question : The United Nations! But then again, you were just a babe in diapers, so you wouldn't remember that!

Don Cardi [/b][/quote]As Signore stated, Sudan offered Bin Laden to the SAUDI ARABIAN government, not to the US government. The Saudi Arabian government was then supposed to hand him over to us. With all the hate you have for Muslims, are you trying to say that you'd trust the Saudi government?

Haha. The UN? The same UN that you conservatives claim wouldn't exist without the US?

Why do you always insult one's intelligence based on age, DC? I had enough of it in PM's from you, but now you do it on the boards? -Pat

Actually the US and Saudi authorities were working together as they commonly do and the "trade-off" would have been successful.

In 1991, I assume you mean when President Bush (the first) didn't order Saddam killed or captured when there were troops around him and in their sniper sights. My order would have been different, but back then we didn't know as much about his activies (and I'm not talking about WMDs) to justify his slaying, let alone to justify it to the international community.


If the US left the UN, it would be even more incompetent and corrupt than it is now.

This is my problem right now with the current war. In the first Gulf War, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people and he invaded Kuwait. Correct? That was the right thing to do. In the current Gulf War, we invaded Iraq because 'Saddam had WMDs.' Now that the officials haven't found them, we're now saying that we're there because of Saddam committing genocide, which he obviously did. I can't stand it when people say that. We went in there for WMDs, not because of the people dying. Why can't they stick with their original statement?

And if the US is such an important part to the UN, it makes one wonder if the US was involved with these scandals. -Pat

Gulf War- to liberate Kuwait. In 91 we didn't know of his other activities as we did in 2003.

Iraq war- many other reasons we went there besides WMDs. We knew of his other activities. Knew of his connections.

The US wasn't involved. If you know anything about them you'd know that it's not some corrupt money pool that UN nations just dip into... there were circumstances and intricate ties that show how corrupt the UN is, and the US had nothing to do with this. What's more, I think the US should leave the UN, and let them figure it out themselves.

We knew that Saddam killed his own people and the Kurds. Why wasn't that enough to get him then? That's the reason being used now, since we have found no WMDs. What makes the genocide in Iraq so much worse then in Sudan and other countries?

I like Kofi Annan and believe he is a good man, just like I believe that about Bush. They both just have inaccurate and sometimes horrible judgement. -Pat

Hate that I have for Muslims? Where have I ever said that I hate Muslims? That is a very serious charge Pat, and I don't appreciate it! That is a false allegation that you have made about me! I have professed my hatred towards EXTREMIST terrorists Muslims, and I have always been careful to differentiate my feelings for Terroists Extremeists vs. True religious Muslims! How dare you categorize me as a hater of Muslims! Your imature accusation is soooo far from the truth! It's imature statements like this one that make me feel that you are not intelligent enough to debate based on your age! You need to be very careful when choosing your words in the future!


Don Cardi

You see! That is a very imature, baseless and serious allegation! Your going to get yourself into some serious trouble some day because of the way that you make false & baseless accusations! It''s blanket statements like these that make people doubt your maturity!


Don Cardi

Do you want it in bold next time?

A very accurate and true charge too.

I don't appreciate your threatening PM's either, but what a pisser, we can't always have things the way we want them.

It was a triple dog dare!

It's not immature and it's not an accusation, it's a truthful outlook on your opinion of the Muslims overseas.

Would you feel better if I went the DC way and sent things in PM?

Is this better?

You hate Muslims.

The US gives more money and advice to the UN then any other country. It's a pretty fair assumption.

It upsets me oh so much too, especially coming from the one and only DC. -Pat

The US gives more money and advice to the UN then any other country.

Are the UN really taking advice from Bush? And people ask whats wrong with the world

Finally, he realizes that I AM the ONE and ONLY!!

Don Cardi

Pat, Seriously, putting all diferences aside for a moment, the reason that I sent you a PM regarding the other post is because I sincerely wanted to point out something to you in private, rather than putting out in the open. I thought that by me doing so, I was shopwing you some respect, and was not looking to offend you. Unfortunately you did not see it that way, and that's too bad, but I really didn't want to talk in full veiw of everyone with that PM, as I was sincerely thinking of your feelings. I am sorry that you took my sending you the PM the wrong way.


Don Cardi

It's all gooooooood.