Yesterday, 9:37 PM
Seymour Hersh on CNN: Bush is Messianic
Seymour Hersh was on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer this morning.
Crooks and Liars has the video.
Check out these transcript highlights (received by e-mail from the show):
Why Hersh believes Bush feels compelled to attack Iran
HERSH: The word I hear is messianic. He thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think he's overwhelmingly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.
Is the U.S. capable of attacking Iran now?
BLITZER: Well, what do you think? Given the enormous military headaches the United States now has in Iraq, does the U.S. military have the wherewithal to launch another preemptive strike, this time against Iran?
HERSH: Oh, sure. We have plenty of air power. We can do it. We have great precision bombings. There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning. There's serious, specific plans. Nobody's made a decision yet. There hasn't been a warning order or an execute order. But the planning's gotten much more intense and much more focused.
Some members of Bush's Administration may resign over Iran plans:
BLITZER: And you're saying that some senior military officers are prepared to resign?
HERSH: I'm saying that, if this isn't walked back and if the president isn't told that you cannot do it -- and once the chairman of the joint chiefs or some senior members of the military say to the president, let's get this nuclear option off the table, it will be taken off. He will not defy the military in a formal report. Unless something specific is told to the White House that you've got to drop this dream of a nuclear option -- and that's exactly the issue I'm talking about -- people have said to me that they would resign.
When pressed for names, Hersh refused:
HERSH: You know why? Because this is a punitive government right now. This is a government that pretty much has its back against the wall, as you've been saying all morning, in Iraq.
And in the military -- you know, one thing about our military is they're very loyal to the president, but they're getting to the edge. They're getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld but also with Cheney and the president.
What we should be doing instead:
HERSH: The critical point, it seems to me, is that we're not talking. This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms.
....And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes everybody. When I was in Vienna, seeing officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the one thing they all said is everybody knows Iran is trying to do something. They're cheating. They're not near. There's plenty of time. And instead of talking about bombing, let's talk about talking.
― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 13:36 (twenty years ago)
I updated this thread rather than the "Bush to nuke Iran" thread because I felt it was a misrepresentation of Hersh's article.
A friend of mine in the private sector policy community (and not known for supporting Bush) wrote the following to me this morning:
Iran has moved more quickly toward enriching uranium that even many hardliners expected, although in some ways even hawks were hedging their bets given how wrong US intelligence was on Iraq's capabilities. The country has now effectively demonstrated that it has the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, and for the most part needs only time to have the actual ability to do so. Based on what it has announced, it would need beween nine and twelve months before it had enough enriched uranium to produce one bomb.
What all this means is that the timing for potential military strikes (ie. air strikes) must be/has been pushed forward. Surgical strikes would only be effective in stalling Iran's process before the end of that 12 months period, or let's say before the end of 2007 in the most "optimistic" case. After that point, military action would need to be much more substantial, and consequently problematic for the US government.
To the extent that there is truly "good" news, it is that countries like Russia may have now come around to the US position that sanctions should be applied via the UN. But the most likely result of that will be Iran cutting back on its oil deliveries, seeing price spikes this fall.
____
To the extent that this is the analysis outside the government and its dependent policy circle, one can only guess at what's going on inside the White House. But the smart money would be on Bush putting at least one more medal on his lapel before leaving office...
― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Thursday, 13 April 2006 12:50 (twenty years ago)