On to the Next War
19 November 2006 7:42 pm by Taylor Marsh
Seymour Hersh is at it again and he's talking about Iran, again. The last piece
warned of a missile strike last June, which didn't happen, of course, but all
eyes are still on that prize.
According to the former senior intelligence official, the C.I.A.’s
assessment suggested that Iran might even see some benefits in a limited military
strike—especially one that did not succeed in fully destroying its nuclear
program—in that an attack might enhance its position in the Islamic
world. “They learned that in the Iraqi experience, and relearned it
in southern Lebanon,” the former senior official said. In both cases,
a more powerful military force had trouble achieving its military or political
goals; in Lebanon, Israel’s war against Hezbollah did not destroy the
group’s entire arsenal of rockets, and increased the popularity of its
leader, Hassan Nasrallah.(snip)
According to the Pentagon consultant, “The C.I.A.’s view is that,
without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s
nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play
into Iran’s hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership
and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.”The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military
believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But
he added that the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with that
threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because
“we’ve cried wolf” before.The
Next Act, by Seymour Hersh
Read the whole article. The Gates – Cheney match up is going to get interesting.
Interesting take: … the machinations behind Rumsfeld’s resignation
and the Gates nomination were complex, and the seeming triumph of the Old Guard
may be illusory.
Look out. Here comes trouble, regardless of the facts on the ground.
