The Iranian Battle Plan II

Arrived back from Las Vegas awhile ago and was catching up on some recent news events when I saw this article in the New Yorker about the Administrations alleged planning of attacks against Iran. Seeing that it was from the New Yorker I knew it would be a Bush hit piece, but when I saw who wrote it, Seymour Hersh, I had to laugh. What a load of crap this article was going to be and I was not disappointed.

It alleges that Bush is planning to drop tactical nukes against Iran’s deep underground Nuclear facilities. How did Seymour get this information? Why from some “former” (Clinton era) intelligence officials. Do ya think they might have a bone to pick with Bush?

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?? ?

Because we all know that everyone inside Iran is walking lockstep with Hitler Jr. right?

Exactly the opposite is true, there is a huge population inside Iran that is tired of the militant Islamic clerics.

Seymour then goes on to detail the information Khan is giving:

In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran?s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. ?The picture is of ?unquestionable danger,? ? the former senior intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been ?singing like a canary.?) The concern, the former senior official said, is that ?Khan has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he?s telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear?

Hmmm, sounds like a unbiased “former” official huh?

Of course Seymour doesn’t stop with “former” officials but then goes on to interview Diplomats:

?All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases?one hundred per cent totally certified nuts,? the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei?s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders ?want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side??in Washington.

So you can get the gist of the article. Conservatives bad, Liberals good….mmmmkay. Conservatives only want war, the liberals are peace seekers and will protect the world because war is not the answer. Liberals can bring Iran to the table because they will hug Hitler Jr. Give him a flower maybe. Offer him a bowl hit.

The left is ready and willing to capitulate, as usual. “Come on man, we have nukes so who are we to tell Hitler Jr. he can’t have one….dude.”

This kind of thinking is so scary it sends shivers down my spine. Israel cannot and will not allow Iran to become capable of doing what they say they want to do, wipe Israel off the map. Hell, we cannot allow them to get the bomb. Imagine what this madman could do?

Sure, try to talk it out with them, but under no circumstances should they believe we will not fight to prevent them from obtaining this capability. Some good news in this paragraph of the article:

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.?s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph?s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: ?We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. ?

Your damn right! I mean look at what ElBaradei thinks is ok:

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. ?We?re quite frustrated with the director-general,? the European diplomat told me. ?His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It?s not. We?re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It?s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.?

So we should rely on this guy to talk it out with Iran? Give me a break.

VDH as usually hits the nail on the head about all the talk from the left about what a disaster a bombing attack would bring to the region:

Moreover, who knows what a successful strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might portend? We rightly are warned of all the negatives ? further Shiite madness in Iraq, an Iranian land invasion into Basra, dirty bombs going off in the U.S., smoking tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, Hezbollah on the move in Lebanon, etc. ? but rarely of a less probable but still possible scenario: a humiliated Iran is defanged; the Arab world sighs relief, albeit in private; the Europeans chide us publicly but pat us on the back privately; and Iranian dissidents are energized, while theocratic militarists, like the Argentine dictators who were crushed in the Falklands War, lose face. Nothing is worse for the lunatic than when his cheap rhetoric earns abject humiliation for others.

It can work, but in the end we have little choice. Either Iran gives it up or they go down with the ship.

Other’s Blogging:

• Decision ’08
• The Real Ugly American
• Atlas Shrugs
• Riehl World View
• Augean Stables
• Stop the ACLU

So you can get the gist of the article. Conservatives bad, Liberals good?.mmmmkay. Conservatives only want war, the liberals are peace seekers and will protect the world because war is not the answer. Liberals can bring Iran to the table because they will hug Hitler Jr. Give him a flower maybe. Offer him a bowl hit.

Curt

See author page