Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050116/2005-01-16T173311Z_01_N16248289_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-USA-NEWYORKER-DC.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible." One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign.""

Or is Syria next? Either way; Military draft, here we come. Shrub and his globalist puppet masters want you to die for world government.


[Edited on January 16, 2005 at 6:11 PM. Reason : `]

1/16/2005 6:06:47 PM

i hope u get drafted 1st and then the 1st 1 to be sent into iran.

1/16/2005 6:08:26 PM

Quote :

"i hope u get drafted 1st and then the 1st 1 to be sent into iran."

1/16/2005 6:09:54 PM

^take one for the team
it proves you're right

1/16/2005 6:41:51 PM

maybe the administration is just leaking this information in hopes that it puts some more pressure on Iran...remember how libya came clean after we started bombing iraq?

1/16/2005 7:08:45 PM

"Right now, Washington is teaching the world a dangerous lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat. Otherwise we will demolish you."-Noam Chomsky

1/16/2005 7:56:43 PM

that's exactly why we have to act before they pose a credible threat...once the country gets nukes we lose some of our advantage

1/16/2005 8:01:22 PM

AMERICA RULES

1/16/2005 8:04:29 PM

Quote :

"AMERICA RULES"

AMEN!

1/16/2005 8:06:25 PM

1/16/2005 8:07:44 PM

GO UNITED STATES

1/16/2005 8:19:14 PM

america is a great country

1/16/2005 9:03:38 PM

Quote :

"Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran"

In other news, the Berlin wall fell.

1/16/2005 9:26:47 PM

WAIT WAIT WAIT

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT WE SPY ON OTHER COUNTRIES?

INCLUDING THOSE THAT ARE DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

AND YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE USING SPY PLANES TO, YOU KNOW, SPY AND STUFF?

YOU'RE CRAZY, MAN.

1/16/2005 10:01:20 PM

^ OMG BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THE ARTICLE SAYS!!11

Quote :

"One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."""

Expected Responces:

1) OMG INTELLIGENCE OFFICALS THREATEN WAR WITH OTHER COUNTRIES ON A REGULAR BASIS!!11

2) OMG LIBERAL MEDIA LIES!

1/16/2005 10:17:04 PM

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker = probably some jack ass who was fired for leaking information to the press.

1/16/2005 10:19:44 PM

Okay, Clear5 is going for number 2. Apparently, he thinks that not only does the New Yorker have very very low standards for fact checking, but Reuters has similarly low standards to repeat such dribble as fact. I know I personally read stuff in Reuters all the time that is just reprinted from The Nation or The National Review. Convincing argument like always.

Any takes for #1?

1/16/2005 10:22:09 PM

what's your take socks?

1/16/2005 10:25:34 PM

I really have no clue. Are there plans being made for an invasion of Iran? Probably. The military was preparing for the '91 Gulf War for years before the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait because they understood that given Hussein's ambitons, outstanding war debt, military power, and other options facing him that an invasion was very likley.

Does this mean that an American invasion of Iran is imminent and unpreventable? I don't think so. I'm sure they want to be prepared incase they come to the decision that its their only option (hopefully less hastily than did for Iraq), but that dosn't mean it's going to happen.

They have to assess the threat Iran poses, the diplomatic options for dealing with that problem, and whether as a last resort they can realistically invade Iran.

1/16/2005 10:37:58 PM

This would be a very very strange and either a very costly or a pretty long (estimate around 6 months) and very high-tech high-cost war (smart bombs don't come cheap).

I don't doubt that we could most completely knock out their infrastructure, including airfields, railways, knocking out their anti-air and radar units, destroying their tanks, etc. I just wonder what the hell would happen after we did that.

1/16/2005 10:44:14 PM

Quote :

"or a pretty long (estimate around 6 months)"

thats long?

1/16/2005 11:12:38 PM

I just finished reading Colin Powell's autobiography written in about 1995. It was very interesting to read about the events of the buildup to Desert Storm.

I think it would be costly right now for the Administration to start any type of engagement in Iran given the current conditions in Iraq. I thought that before the Iraq war that Iran posed more of a threat just based on my own research on the topic.

That being said, I think it will be extrememly hard for the Bush Administration to take any action unless there is some provocation on Iran's part.

It does however seem like the next likely place for us to get agressive. But, I think we'll see a ton of resistance from places like Saudi Arabia...look at what is happening in the Middle East.

Afghanistan is becoming a democracy, Iraq is becoming a democracy, Iran is inbetween those two, and Palestine had elections after Yasser Arafat's death. An "Axis of Freedom" is forming in the MidEast even if it takes 10, 15, 20 years for it to truly be realized and this will ultimately mean an end to the standard rule in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.

1/16/2005 11:17:29 PM

Quote :

"I think we'll see a ton of resistance from places like Saudi Arabia"

I seriously doubt the Wahhabi authorities would have qualms with the U.S. military killing Shi'ite Muslims (they consider Shi'ite Muslims heretics). Also, considering the Bush family's oleaginous and lucrative relationship with the Bayt al-Saud, the Saudi royal family probably feels a degree of impunity from American pressure to democratize.

There would, however, likely be resistance to an invasion from Iraq's Shi'ite majority, who we currently depend on for the stability of Iraq's new government.

[Edited on January 16, 2005 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2005 11:33:20 PM

When I said Saudi Arabia, I meant the ruling family, not the Wahabism clerics. These two groups are practically living in different countries. Anyway, 10-20 years from now Bush will not be in office, so I think the Saudi's recognize that right now they're protected because of their relationship with the Bush family, but they must feel some unease about the future.

1/16/2005 11:43:49 PM

Quote :

"When I said Saudi Arabia, I meant the ruling family, not the Wahabism clerics. These two groups are practically living in different countries."

If I'm not mistaken, the CRLO (The Permanent Council for Scientific Research and Legal Opinion) and the muttawa’a are bankrolled by the royal family. The royal family has funded Wahhabi institutions and mosques worldwide as well.

Quote :

"Anyway, 10-20 years from now Bush will not be in office, so I think the Saudi's recognize that right now they're protected because of their relationship with the Bush family, but they must feel some unease about the future."

I'm sure that the royal family felt threatened by the language Kerry used in his DNC speech, so they have a vested interest in keeping Bush and those like him in office.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:09 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:00:58 AM

The Saudi royal family and the wahabi clerics are inseperable.

I mean, the government enforces wahabi law for christ's sake.

1/17/2005 12:06:21 AM

^precisely, the influence and staying power of Wahhabism is predicated on the unholy alliance formed between the Saud family and al-Wahhab

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:10:30 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17037-2004Jun4.html

Looks like we're both partly right...

Quote :

"But louder bells should be ringing throughout the Muslim world over the cost to Islam of this conflict between the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi zealots it helped create and who now vow to overthrow it."

I guess I didn't realize that the Saudi's helped give Wahabism it's foothold, but I knew I had done some reading in various places that it wasn't exactly a loving relationship.

Anyway...my main point is that Saudi Arabia will at some point feel this push towards democracy and will be threatened by it.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:15:36 AM

I believe this section of the article refers to the members of al-Qaeda, not Wahhabi jurists. As I have stated in a previous thread that Bin Laden, who was raised as a Wahhabi Muslim, is directing his rage at the Saudi government because he feels that the Saudi government is being hypocritical when it permits American troops to remain stationed in the Arabian peninsula, while previously stating that non-Muslims defile the Arabian peninsula. In his mind, they have violated their own tenants and so the acts of terror his organization is now perpetrating in the region are his form of protest. This is all related to the attacks on Saudi and American compounds and the kidnapping of Paul Johnson.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:28:08 AM

Heelfan,

Just out of curiousity (since you are knowledgable on the subject)...How do you think the U.S. and/or Int'l community should deal with the MidEast long term?

1/17/2005 12:33:34 AM

^^^Saudia Arabia is going to hold municipal elections next month, but who knows how thats gonna go.

^He quoted Chomsky do you really need to ask that question.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:34:43 AM

^ Should we assume these are going to be "government sponsored" offcials?

^ Touche.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 12:36:23 AM

To begin with, the "Middle East" is not a place that can be objectified and perhaps it is too vague a term. There is a diversity of governments in the middle east, ranging from the secular to the theocratic. It also has to be borne in mind that these governments usually do not represent the will of the people, so a distinction has to be made between the polities of these states and the people they preside over. I do however think that there are some basic principles the United States could work from when approaching the middle east (which could be applied to its policies virtually anywhere else on earth).

Most importantly, the U.S. must not act on double standards in its commitment to human rights and freedom. If it is to retain any sense of credibility, this administration cannot express outrage at the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's regime (a regime that the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations subsidized for over a decade) while turning a blind eye to the odious human rights abuses of religious minorities and women in Saudi Arabia and the subhuman treatment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli government. The U.S. must work in unison with nations who are equally concerned about human rights to put pressure (financially and politically) on oppressive governments. Perhaps the unified international effort to end apartheid in South Africa could serve as a model for such intervention. For such a push to work for a country like Saudi Arabia, the United States and the other countries involved would have to find an alternative form of energy to crude oil imported from the Arabian peninsula so it could no longer be wielded as a "pacifier." I fear that this approach may be a little too idealistic and that few nations would actually support such endeavors either because the U.S. government has lost their trust or because not many world governments would participate unless it somehow advanced their own self-interests.

It goes without saying that in order to protect the security and safety we enjoy as Americans, any terrorists who pose an immediate and direct threat to the United States must be brought to justice. If a nation is suspected of providing aid and resources to such terrorists, then these suspicions should be investigated with the help of the international community. If the country under investigation is found to be culpable of willfully supporting terrorists bent on killing innocent Americans (with the knowledge that the terrorists intend to do so), then we must demand that said country turn the terrorists over, preferably accompanied by voices from the international community. If they refuse, then the use of force would have to be considered. Due to its destructiveness and the toll war takes on human life, invasion of a country should be our very last resort.

Unfortunately, the United States has created an almost insurmountable distrust of itself in the region. Not only has the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to find WMD done irreparable damage to our government's image, but the United States past actions in the region have sewed the seeds of discontentment with America. America's reluctance to criticize the human rights violations of Palestinian citizens and refugees by the Israeli government and its role in the creation of the state of Israel and resulting displacement of Palestinians has infuriated both Muslims and Christians, both Arabs and Persians. While pursuing its interests in the Cold War, the United States supported numerous despotic regimes in the region, most notoriously the regime of the Shah in Iran, which Amnesty International at one point described as the worst offender in the abuse of human rights in the entire world (even worse than the U.S.S.R.). These are but a few examples.

To partially "right these wrongs" the United States is obligated to prove that it has a true concern for the rights and freedoms of every group of people in the middle east and treat the citizens of these countries with the utmost dignity.


[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 2:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2005 2:20:22 AM

CNN posted this this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

Quote :

"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.""

Quote :

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

Start looking for ways to not get drafted.

1/17/2005 6:07:37 AM

I doubt you have much to worry about.

Iran's nuclear program is almost certainly past the point where they can build a bomb.
They've got the weapons grade uranium, the engineering facilities, and the technical skill.
The only question is whether they've got the capacity to deliver a nuke to Washington or New York.

Still, if the US tries to fuck with them, they'll be able to take care of themselves.

1/17/2005 8:23:43 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

Quote :

"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."

This tactic has worked so well in the past, why change?

1/17/2005 9:18:28 AM

Quote :

"This tactic has worked so well in the past, why change?"

Hey, it worked in Iraq. Do you remember how many Kurds were slaughtered? If we had given them simple air support and weapons they would have taken the whole country, I believe.

[Edited on January 17, 2005 at 10:50 AM. Reason : we]

1/17/2005 10:50:16 AM

whats the current draft age?

1/17/2005 11:33:58 AM

^^another reason why the first Gulf War wasn't a "total success"

1/17/2005 12:04:03 PM

I wonder....if our govt had a huge hacksaw if they would try and saw off the eastern hemisphere and the south part of our hemisphere?!

Would it affect daylight savings time.?..cause I really like that lol

1/17/2005 1:53:10 PM

Actually, I choose to remember the first gulf war as a total failure.

If we ever go to war with someone else and let them live, so help me, I'll protest.

1/17/2005 1:53:47 PM

hey instead of protest...let's open fire

1/17/2005 1:54:32 PM

Recon missions are normal in pretty much every country.


i'm not too worried.

1/17/2005 1:55:24 PM

Recon missions are not normal in "every country", least of all a backwater shit hole like Iran.They are expensive and pose a risk of international incident. The only explanation for this is that the Pentagon has began planning scenarios for a possible attack on Iran. Whether this is an invasion or just merely assessing a run at crippling infastructure is uncertain but what is plainly obvious is that possible solutions and operational statistics are being prepared for presentation to the President of the United States.

1/17/2005 2:51:19 PM

^ That sounds like a lot of alarmist talk, unless the spy plane incident in 2001 meant that we had invasion or infrastructure cripling plans for china.

1/17/2005 2:56:04 PM

Report in the New Yorker is bullshit:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20050117/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1

1/17/2005 3:56:48 PM

1/17/2005 4:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Recon missions are not normal in "every country", least of all a backwater shit hole like Iran."

completely and totally wrong.

and i shouldn't have to tell you why.

1/17/2005 4:16:09 PM

When I went to India last month our plane flew over Tehran. I didn't know that US planes could do that, even civilian ones.

1/17/2005 4:27:00 PM

Yes, ^ we also flew over Tehran. It was coming from Paris (Air France) to Delhi

looong flight for sure

1/17/2005 6:08:07 PM