I really hate it when they use unnamed sources. And, really, if we are doing covert ops in Iran, should it be reported in the media?

I think Adesnik is being a wee bit generous.

Are you implying that there is anything like a full and complete accounting for US actions in Central America in the 1980s available anywhere? Could you point me to it please?

The US may or may not be commissioning death squads, and may or may not be probing Iran. I don't know that Hersh is the best source. Then again, a DoD denial doesn't mean much either - they denied that torture was occuring until Hersh threw the pictures on the table.

Cranky

Just read the DoD press release in detail. Lot of gaseous personal attacks on Hersh. No denial of death squads. No denial of probing Iran. No denial of plans for attacking Iran.

In other words, a classic non-denial denial.

After reading that, I retract my last comment: Hersh is more likely than not correct.

Cranky

Hersh doesn't call these commando groups "death squads," but he does erroneously (I think) make a reference to the early 1980s. In fact, the kinds of operations he describes are more clearly the kinds of things the U.S. special forces trained units of the Salvadoran military to do starting in the mid-1980s.

"Action teams" and the creation of "pseudo-gangs" sound like the kind of military reconnaissance efforts we know something about in El Salvador. Admittedly, "right-wing execution squads" sounds like the "death squads" as we commonly think of them in the Salvadoran context, but much else in the article points more to the kind of "training of elite units to snatch or kill very specific insurgent leaders" that Dickey referred to in his article.

I'd take this as more or less a confirmation.

On El Salvador, check the National Security Archive documents.

Hersh's latest New Yorker article is a continuation of his speculative fancy that Donald Rumsfeld is personally responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. If you swallow that particular morsel, it's easy to bite into this one. Hersh relies on the same sources -- Tom, Dick, and Harry Anonymous -- and follows the same pattern of untestable assertion and equally unsupportable inference. Ultimately, you have to accept his tale on Faith because you can't corroborate it independently.

Actually, you sort of can.

One:

"Iran has just formed a new counter-espionage agency designed specifically to protect its nuclear program from outside interference. (...)"

two:

"the Pentagon is in the process of reconstituting the "Yellow Fruit" organization, with the same blank check black budget, and the same mind-sets that previously led to enormous ineffectiveness, waste, and some outright corruption and theft of government funds. Known as Gray Fox, this new incarnation of Yellow Fruit has Richard Secord, one of the leaders or the Iran-Contra scandal for which several top personalities were indicted and some convicted, as a primary player."

Bush-backers calling anyone to account for "untestable assertion and equally unsupportable inference" is hysterical. That no one's laughing is tragic.

Oh, crap. Secord's back, too?

Are there *any* Iran-Contra alumns who *haven't* been re-employed, other than Ollie North (who's got a talk-radio gig) and William Casey (who died oh so suddenly and conveniently)?

Sweet sufferin' succotash. Wonder what Allawi's promising in return.

If you check out the trackbacks to this post, one of them is all about how Hersh took credit for exposing Abu Ghraib when the Army actually exposed it all by itself. That's frighteningly disingenuous. Are there stories where Hersh has been shown to have been way off, or are wingers just mad at him for exposing Abu Ghraib and My Lai. When I saw him speak earlier this year he was saying some things about events in Iraq that I hope were untrue, but I don't really know. In particular, he told a story about it was common practice for Army convoys to drive through the streets of major cities at night with their lights off, and they weren't sure how many people they'd killed that way.

It depends what your definition of "expose" is, washerdreyer. The Army discovered and investigated the abuses at Abu Ghraib -- their investigation was Hersh's primary source and he makes no claim otherwise. Hersh "exposed" what the Army knew, along with details he gained from additional sources, to the general public.

Note: Iran-Contra and death squads have nothing to do with El Salvador. People are mixing it up with Nicaragua.

As far as Khan goes, its a tough decision, but equating it with allowing black market nukes to continue flowing is wrong. All indications are the Khan has been retired by Musharif and is sitting in Pakistan cooling his heals. Would he be valuable to us for intel? Sure, if he wanted to talk. But is he actively a danger to us anymore? Probably not. Its a matter of facing the future or dwelling on spilt milk.

> Iran-Contra and death squads have nothing
> to do with El Salvador. People are mixing
> it up with Nicaragua.

Again, I don't think there has ever been any full accouting for what the United States Government did in that region during the 1980s along the lines of Argentina's Project Disappeared. Given that some of the key players in the Reagan Administration are now being recycled into Iraq, I very much doubt that there has been or will be. But if I am wrong, plesae point me to that account.

The Right Wing Noise Machine tries to make a big difference between Nicaguara and El Salvador. The fact is the pieces were all part of the same puzzle, the same people were involved in all the "special projects", and the School of the Americas was an equal opportunity employer. That dog don't hunt.

Cranky

Hersh's news about Khan led me to reflect that here, at least, was a rational reason for not going after A.Q.K. with fire & sword. Not necessarily a smart reason, just a rational one.

I take Drezner's caution about disgruntled agents seriously. A while ago, we had competing "Osama is washed up"/"Osama is a major threat" unnamed-source stories in the media, doubtless reflecting some bureaucratic infighting.

All we can say for sure is that Hersh's article is quite consistent with what else we already know, and that since 9/11, Hersh has been right more often than not.

Question to those on the right: do we have the stamina to sustain the role that we are apparently adopting? The superpower that preemptively strikes every country that's developing nukes or thinking about it? (Aside from our good friends in N. Korea of course.) Because if we don't, then going halfway is just going to make the Iranians hate us 10 times as much, by the time they DO get the bomb.

What is with spelling reëlection with an umlaut?

Is this some sort of protest against Bush, or is The New Yorker using some obscure style book?

"What is with spelling reëlection with an umlaut?"

Welcome to the world of the New Yorker :-).

"Because if we don't, then going halfway is just going to make the Iranians hate us 10 times as much, by the time they DO get the bomb."

See, thats the kind of wrongheaded point of view that gets us in trouble. It doesnt matter a whit what Irans 'feelings' are. It matters which individuals are in control, what their aspirations are, and what they are willing to do to reach them. We know those answers: Islamofascist Mullahs, hegemony of the region, and damn near anything.
You are right that we need a comprehensive policy, and we seem to be developing one. Bush has flat out said Iran wont be allowed to develop a nuke. We can probably prevent it militarilly, with bombing alone. We can do the same with every unfriendly nation that hasnt already passed the threshold (North Korea. Not a friend, simply too late). More importantly, once we make an example of Iran, we wont need to do it again. Nobody wants to lose all their expensive infastructure and possibly a bunch of other national toys (oil fields? Why not pull an Iron Eagle?).
The point is, if we spend our time hand wringing about whether we're winning a popularity contest as the Euros want us to do, we're gonna get cold cocked by people like the Mullahs that arent even pretending to play that juvenile game. This is a deadly, deadly contest of wills with a murderous enemy. What they think of us is pointless, except so far as they fear and respect our power and resolve.

> Bush has flat out said Iran wont be allowed to
> develop a nuke. We can probably prevent it
> militarilly, with bombing alone. We can do the
> same with every unfriendly nation that hasnt
> already passed the threshold

Presumably you have read the Strategic Bombing Survey reports, and you know that during WWII German production peaked at the same time as Allied bombload dropped.

Oh, but now we have all these wonder weapons that will take out exact targets for us. If we know what the targets are, which we don't. If there is no decoying operation in place, which we can be reasonably sure there is. And if there are no advanced Russian SAMs ready to make things a little more costly for us - there's one we don't know about.

Hoo yah! Bomb 'em all!

Cranky

Mark,

You sound like a member of the Hitler Youth, calm down.

"If you don't take care of the Jews now, there is no telling how much more damage they could do!!!"

I just put a copy of the Princess Bride in the mail to the White House.

"Presumably you have read the Strategic Bombing Survey reports, and you know that during WWII German production peaked at the same time as Allied bombload dropped."

Presumably you've heard of the Israeli bombing of Osirak and its affect on the history of the world. Or the Reagan bombing of Libya. Or Clintons bombing of Serbia. We arent trying to stop a warmachine from stamping bullets, we're blowing up delicate scientific equipment and hopefully skilled minds.

"Oh, but now we have all these wonder weapons that will take out exact targets for us."

Yeh.

"If we know what the targets are, which we don't."

I had no idea you were on the National Security Council. Please enlighten us on precisely what we do and dont know. Of course, even assuming you are correct, it begs the question about whether the Mullahs are willing to spend the next decade having their power grid bombed daily and living in the dark. Or their oil exports halted.

"If there is no decoying operation in place, which we can be reasonably sure there is."

We have many bombs for many targets.

"And if there are no advanced Russian SAMs ready to make things a little more costly for us - there's one we don't know about."

Costly? For a tomahawk missile? That they will never pick up on radar?

"Hoo yah! Bomb 'em all!"

Either that or let the Ayatollahs of Rockinrolla have nuclear weapons. I mean, they arent very blazenly irresponsible now are they? Its not like they supply terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere with all kinds of nasty toys or anything. Probably, they will be totally good neighbors and reasonable folks once they get their nukes. I mean, NK has been so much less a pain in the ass lately. Right?

"You sound like a member of the Hitler Youth, calm down"

By trying to prevent the most reactionary terrorist government in the world, who have sworn the destruction of Israel btw, from obtaining nuclear weapons? That makes sense.
The rest of you sound like a little kid trying to convince their mom to make tuna fush instead of PB&J because the bully doesnt like it. These Mullahs are thugs and murderers. Terrorists and religious zealots. Kinda like lefties think of Jerry Fallwell, just picture em like that. Yeh, that bad.

I would certainly hope active reconnaisance was underway to identify potential nuclear weapons development sites in Iran. I don't really have a problem with letting the Europeans think that the reconnaisance might be a prelude to something more, otherwise they would be unlikely to press the diplomatic track seriously.

But actual military action to destroy Iran's nuclear program would be a very, very big deal. Nothing I've seen suggests a situation there analogous to Iraq's Osirak complex in 1981, where Saddam Hussein's nuclear program was set back for many years with an attack on one target. Iran has many more targets and better defenses; moreover the Osirak operation was carried out by Israel against a country that was hostile to Israel and was expected to remain so indefinitely. The administration has said explicitly it is not making this assumption with respect to Muslim countries.

A military move against the Iranian would be a big bet on one throw of the dice. Sometimes you have to make those, but not often.

Incidentally, the other thing I noticed about all of the policy initiatives discussed is that they could be run out of the Pentagon. This is consistent with Bush administration foreign policy in the first term. It may remain the pattern for as long as Sec. Rumsfeld holds office.

Osirak was one site. Easy to hit and shut down the whole program. Iran has learned the lession from this and has dispersed their sites all over the places. Dozens and dozens of them, some real, some probably fake. You want to bet we know where they all are?

Seriously, if we're going to go around invading every country we don't like, don't we need to increase taxes, double our ground forces, put the economy on war mobilization, a draft, etc.? That we haven't done that means we're all talk. Or the Bush Administration is so divorced from reality that they think we can easily invade a few more countries, our minor difficulties in Iraq regardless.

"You want to bet we know where they all are?"

Smart money's on "no". Such is life in post 9/11 America.

"Iran has learned the lession from this and has dispersed their sites all over the places. Dozens and dozens of them, some real, some probably fake. You want to bet we know where they all are?"

If they are dispersed, we dont have to hit them all to set the program back. We are talking about an incredibly complex engineering and research project, not some illusive single target like a live warhead.

"Seriously, if we're going to go around invading every country we don't like, don't we need to increase taxes, double our ground forces, put the economy on war mobilization, a draft, etc.?"

Who suggested invading?

"That we haven't done that means we're all talk. Or the Bush Administration is so divorced from reality that they think we can easily invade a few more countries, our minor difficulties in Iraq regardless."

Who said anything about invading? Its a straw man. Invasion would be entirely counterproductive, not to mention unneccessary. If and when negotiation fails, we bomb the sites we can find, and blackmail the regime into compliance by threatening their toys like their missile factories or blockaiding their oil exports. We can do all that with a minimum of naval forces already in the region.

Mr. Drezner,
Well, there you have it. The neocons who read your page are not satisfied that the prestige and influcence of the United States has been damaged for a generation. No, they want to trigger off something that could well turn into WWIII and at /best/ would result in the US being kicked back to 2nd power status.

Are you sure you want to be hang out with this crowd, intellectually speaking?

Cranky

Well, I will say the breathless handwringers are out in force today. In a single day ive been accused of sounding like a Nazi and advocating a strategy that at /best/ will somehow knock the US into the second world (assuming WW3 doesnt break out of course), all for taking the shocking position that stopping terrorist islamofascist regimes from obtaining nuclear weapons might be in our best interest. Apparently American 'prestige' is our most critical mission. We'll see how that 'prestige' holds up when a nuclear armed Iran with the capability of striking Rome starts blackmailing _us_.

I guess i'll keep my opinions on Syria to myself in the hope of not seeing any hyperventalation or sprained wrists this afternoon.

In all of the attacks on Mr Buehner (separate from the name calling, that is) where is the alternative solution posed by the left or neo-liberals?

How would any of you deal with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran?

See, Phocion, when people say "Our ill-advised war in Iraq means we don't have the resources to deal with more dangerous threats," this kind of sitation is exactly what they mean.

See, Phocio, when people say "Squandering our military might and international credibility on an unnecessary war that was based on false pretences means we won't have the resources or the international standing when we really do need it," this kind of sitation is exactly what they mean.

See, Phocio, when people say "Bush's insanely stupid grasp of strategy is going to cost us more than international prestige and soldiers' lives. It's going to cost us our reputation as a superpower, because our military is so overextended, exhausted and demoralized that it won't be able to respond to any possible emergencies," THE SITUATION WITH IRAN IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN.

"How would any of you deal with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran?"

Why are you asking us? *We're* not the ones who sent the active military, the Reserves, the Training Units, and retired guys 60+ years old to Iraq on a fool's errand.

MB, the weapons are in Syria right? Better go their first then!

Mr. Buehner:

one concern with launching punitive raids against Iran is that they have Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles. They could sink almost every single oil tanker in the mid East.

We also have virtually undefended borders. A committed iranian govt could infiltrate significant numbers of troops into the US, who could target our own chemical facilities, power plants, etc.

why are you so sure that punitive raids will have the mullahs cowering in their bunkers? presumably they are RIGHT NOW preparing counterstrikes.

what to do about Iran? same thing we did with the USSR -- M.A.D.

Francis

You guys who talk about how we can't bomb out the iranian nuclear program are letting reality get in the way.

Suppose we bomb iran and then we claim we've destroyed the iranian nuclear program. Will the iranians disagree? Will they say "Hey, yoohoo Bush, you missed some!". No way. They won't say any more about their nuclear program until after they do a test or two.

And in the meantime we can declare victory! We can say we destroyed the iranian nuclear program and made the world safe for democracy! We can claim we've showed the bad guys they can't get away with it, and that dozens of other bad guys won't even try to start a nuke program because we showed them what would happen.

When people complain about how bad it's going in iraq or in afghanistan we can point to this giant victory and say we'll win the others too.

And we can point out that air power brings victories while occupation doesn't, which is an argument for more airstrikes against iraqi cities.

And then if we send the spotters into iran and find more nuclear sites, we can hit them again.

We can go right on declaring victory until iran actually sets off some nukes, which might be years away.

We can hardly expect iran to sell oil to us or our friends but that's OK, oil is fungible, whoever they sell it to can't afford to buy as much from somebody else so we'll buy the other oil.

I have some concern about iranians in the USA. There are somewhere around a million of them, more than half in LA. They tend to be the ones who ran away from the current government but they still might not like us bombing iran, so there's a delicate matter of making sure they aren't terrorists while still being nice to them. I'm not sure the Bush administration has the subtlety to handle this matter with the proper care. If the rich iranian immigrants pull out of the USA it will make our economy that much more precarious.

And I'm concerned about various other side effects. But isn't it a pleasant way to look at things? If we hold the power then it doesn't matter how the world thinks of us, what matters is how we think of the world. If they don't like it they can lump it. If they act up and we don't like them, we'll bomb them until we're satisfied. After all our sacrifices through the cold war at last we come out on top and we can pummel our enemies to our hearts' content. I might enjoy feeling that way if I didn't think reality would bite us for it.

Francis, the iranians have friends -- EU, china, etc. If they bomb the kuwait refineries or tankers they'll be cutting off oil to their friends more than to us. That might persuade them to do something else instead of that.

The idea that they'd attack the shipping is good for our navy which has been somewhat left out of this war. Our aircraft carriers went in and did bombing raids, they used up all their cruise missiles, and what else could they do? Send in a few river boats. Big deal. But if they're the only thing standing between iran and all the oil tankers, then they're important again. Justlike in the closing days of the gulf war when we went in to protect the tankers from both sides, particularly from iran. Remember? We shot down an airliner, and an iraqi pilot 'accidentally' hit one of our ships, iraq apologised and we accepted the apology since at the time we considered them our friends who were fighting our enemy iran.

It's important to come up with important roles for all the services so none of them will feel left out.

"one concern with launching punitive raids against Iran is that they have Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles. They could sink almost every single oil tanker in the mid East. "

Perhaps they could, and of course the Swiss may burn down their chocolate factories too. Unlikely to happen, in either event. Not to mention the vast majority of traffic through the gulf is not American. Most Middle Eastern oil goes to Europe, and cutting off their supply will finally create a vital interest for Europe. Drawing a bunch more nations into a war probably wouldnt be in Irans best interest.

Furthermore, we do have countermeasures if Iran decided to close the gulf to us. Our navy can do quite a number on Iran if they so choose. Our Aegis ships were designed specifically to deal with such threats. At the end of the day, if we bomb a couple dozen WMD targets, does Iran _really_ want to get into it with us on a grand scale?

"We also have virtually undefended borders. A committed iranian govt could infiltrate significant numbers of troops into the US, who could target our own chemical facilities, power plants, etc."

Which could be happening already. The same didnt deter us from going into Afghanistan, and if we find ourselves intimidated by Iran we might as well give up and start buying Korans.

"why are you so sure that punitive raids will have the mullahs cowering in their bunkers? presumably they are RIGHT NOW preparing counterstrikes."

Probably they are. Its just a matter of pushing the right buttons with the tyrants. Iran needs money to be a regional power, and they need oil to make money. Will they really risk their oil fields by trying reprisals against us? It would be their choice. Are they willing to risk whatever influence and power they have now for revenge? Perhaps, but I doubt it, unless they are completely irrational. If they are indeed irrational, well, thats not a very good argument for letting them have nukes in the first place now is it? This isnt an optional confrontation, pay me now or pay me later.

"what to do about Iran? same thing we did with the USSR -- M.A.D."

I would suggest the hundreds of millions that suffered and/or died in the Cold War wouldnt find that so alluring. I dont think you have properly estimated the effect a nuclear protected Iran would have on world stability. They fund terrorism now. What will they do when they need fear no reprisals? Nukes are a political weapons more than anything, and that is setting aside the issue of whether these guys really are insane religious fanatics that might just be ok with the Assured Destruction part of the equation. MAD doesnt have an answer for that one.

F

Palladin

You have copmletely avoided answering the question. Regardless of what you think was done incorrectly in the past...in Iraq...that doesn't change the situation in Iran. Deal witht he reality that exists. You can lay blame for what ever you want but that doesn't exonarate you, or those who side with you, from having to have a plan.

Throwing up your hands and saying the other guy ruined it and there is nothing that can be done now so why try isn't a very wise and learned position to take.

Why not try to answer the question like this..."Had Kerry been sworn in today he should do..."

But no, no plan, just criticism.

***Oh, and notice that "Bush's insanely stupid grasp of strategy" now has an international force based in Afghanistan and a cooperative Pakistan to the East...Basing agreements in sevral of the 'Stans...naval 'Support' ships traversing the Persian Gulf, and an armed US force of nearly 150,000 on the Western border... I didn't realize that HAVING THEM SURROUNDED was an insanely stupid strategy!!!

Phocian, I don't see that Palladin has any obligation to offer you a workable plan at this point. There may be no workable plan left. He certainly doesn't owe you a plan that you would approve of.

The issue is that Bush and Cheney have gotten us into such a disgusting mess that they should be impeached. After the impeachment is plenty of time to discuss how to get out of the mess.

But I'll do it anyway. One of the issues is that when Bush declared early in his first term that he intended to destroy iran, building nukes became their only rational strategy. We could at least try to make it acceptable for them to back down from that.

We could make a public announcement (as well as a private offer) that when iran does dismantle their nuclear weapons program and does have international inspections that show the program is dismantled, the USA will promise that no US or israeli troops will enter iran and no US or israeli warplanes or missiles will overfly iran without official iranian permission, and this promise will last forever or until the inspections are no longer conclusive.

This would have some disadvantages if they agreed. But those disadvantages would be less than we'd have if they got nukes, and less than we'd have from a war with iran.

And if they refused it would have pretty good propaganda value, and nothing else would have changed.

As a side issue, I disagree with you about pakistan. Pakistan is our undeclared enemy. They were our ally of convenience back when we were miffed at india. They liked our help but they didn't like us. They were our ally of convenience when we and they wanted to get the russians out of afghanistan. They liked our help but they didn't like us and we didn't like them. They installed the taliban in afghanistan; it was their supplies that kept taliban on top. When they cut off aid taliban was going to fall whether we send any troops or not.

The only reason pakistan is "cooperating" with us is we're so dangerous they do better to pretend.

There's an old proverb that goes "If you find your enemy knee deep in mud, help him out. If you find him neck deep, push him in." We're about waist deep now, and if we depend on pakistan in an attack on iran they're likely to give us that push. And they're a nuclear nation, remember, we can't do that much to them.

I think they'd rather continue the pretense as long as we're willing to, though. They're a rather weak nation with india as a strong enemy. They could have china as an ally against india but china is too strong and too close. We can help them against china and india both, at least a little, and we're so far away and so ignorant that we won't interfere with them very much.

Mark, I agree that it would be stupid for iran to damage gulf oil production. It would make them new enemies who would be hurt much more by it than their present enemies would.

For the same reason it would be stupid for us to threaten iranian oilfields, refineries, ports, etc.

The same exact logic applies. We have to let iran make money selling oil because we need the oil and so do our various allies and neutrals.

MAD is our defeat condition with iran. It's what we're planning a war to avoid. Of course you'd reject it. But it isn't as bad a defeat as some. We already have MAD with pakistan and that one is going OK so far. India and pakistan have MAD and they're being pretty responsible apart from playing it up for the media.

I hope your faith in the rationality of the Mullahs is well placed. If they believe their own rhetoric, such a course would be gravely dangerous, if not suicidal. Just because a strategy worked against a secular communist enemy is no proof it is wise against religious zealots who's stock in trade is martyrdom.

Mark, that's true. On the other hand if eschatological christians get control of our nukes we'd better hope they don't believe their own rhetoric either.

We've already threatened MAD against the russians over israel, and they backed down. They backed down, we didn't. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

"Mark, that's true. On the other hand if eschatological christians get control of our nukes we'd better hope they don't believe their own rhetoric either."

The comparison is absurd and unserious. Christians arent detonating themselves on the streets of Baghdad and Jerusalem on a daily basis.
The current obsession with making devout christians into boogey men is just the most current indulgence of the left.

"We've already threatened MAD against the russians over israel, and they backed down. They backed down, we didn't. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?"

About what?

Mark, I shouldn't respond to trolling but just this last time....

For MAD what counts is insane leaders, not individuals who're willing to sacrifice themselves for their brothers -- which Jesus said was the greatest thing.

Individuals who lay down their lives for their brothers, whether they're Marines or insurgents or what, are showing the greatest love. Leaders who sacrifice their entire people to make some kind of point are showing something else. No relation.

I can't believe I just read someone equating suiciding bombings with love.

This isn't reasonable opposition, this is insanity.

*suicide

In my amazement I mistyped.

Jack C, you haven't thought it out.

All I can ask is that you think about what Jesus said, and think about some of the Marines who get posthumous medals. Think.