Illustration: the good general is reduced to a shill for the Decider. Overlooked is his party is suggesting that Iran is terrorist, or at least part of it, and thus congress votes overwhelmingly to authorize Bush to bomb Iran.
Before we get to that, however, we have learned that many self-called Xtians are calling for a third party candidate to run. The need one that will not take them for granted as the Republicans do and I fully support them in this effort. In fact, I offer the following sermon: “Hallelujah brother and sisters! Who should be running Amerika anyway, Jesus or Gulianni’ Well I am here to tell you that I stand with Jesus, Hallelujah! Praise God! Yes, yew all need to go out and beg, yes beg, Pat Robertson or someone who is on the side of the Lord! Bless yew brothers and sisters. And I tell yew here and now that the great Elmer Gantry told us all that Jesus would be the greatest football player in the word, praise the Lord! But Jesus belongs in Amerika, Hallelujah! Please, God is the greatest baker in with world and he needs your dough! Send it to the cause! Let Jesus in your heart and the White House! As God-fearing Christ-ee-ans we can no long let the RePUBlickans take Jesus for granted. I feel it deep in mah heart – start a Christian Party!”
In India, an importer gave the name “New Arrival Zone for India” to his company. Indian Jews did not like the idea. (You gotta think about that one.)
It became more obvious this week that it has been Decided that we need to attack Iran. Unfortunately, the electorate does not seem to buy the idea that Iran is going to make mushroom clouds appear all over the United States, so another reason is needed to support the idea. Terror, yeah, that is it, terror. So far, nobody has come out in favor of terror. Iran is terror. Good. Now that is settled. Now all we need to do is, um, yeah, support our troops so congress will supply the money and we can attack Iran. And only about 20 voted against the designation that will allow Bush to bomb Iran.
While on the topic of Iran, the remarks of the President of Iran were translated as “We have no homosexuals in Iran.” I now am informed that the Pharisee is properly translated as “We have no problem with homosexuality in Iran.” The remark could be construed as more ominous than the mistranslation, but also as less invasive.
Of course, this overlooks all the ramifications of Iran defending itself or how it would react. But then, if you have a war, someone is going to get hurt. Why worry about that? We did not let such things bother us with Iraq and look how good that turned out.
After all, Congress has important work to do – things such as voting against making a pun on the General’s name and whether or not to condemn Rush Limbaugh for saying that any soldier who is opposed to the war is a “phony soldier,” even if he was mutilated by a landmine. (They did the first and not the second.)
Included this week are and interview with Hersch on Iran.
Also, the speech made to the General Assembly. (It is a bit strangely formatted as it has been converted from pdf to txt to doc to html. I can hardly wait to see how it turns out myself after posting and mailing.)
Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran
Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl’sid=07/10/02/1438251
In his latest article in the New Yorker magazine, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports there has been a significant increase in the tempo of planning for war with Iran inside the Bush administration. Hersh says the White House recently requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw longstanding plans for a possible attack. Hersh also reports the Bush administration’s rationale for bombing Iran has shifted from Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program to Iran’s role in Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
The Bush administration is approaching its last year in the White House.
As the clock ticks towards 2008, speculation grows over whether
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will indeed launch a
widely feared attack on Iran.
The latest *report
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh’printable=true>*
from the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says war planning is
intensifying. Writing in the New Yorker, Hersh reveals that the White
House recently requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw longstanding
plans for a possible attack. According to Hersh, the Bush
administration’s rationale for bombing Iran has shifted from Iran’s
alleged nuclear weapons program to Iran’s role in Iraq. Hersh writes:
“What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission
has been reconceived as counterterrorism.”
The focus is no longer a broad bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities but strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. On Sunday, John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, called for the US to attack Iran and overthrow of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bolton said: “If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.”
* Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist
for the New Yorker. Read Hersh’s article *”Shifting Targets”
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh’printable=true>.*
*JUAN GONZALEZ: *The Bush administration is approaching its last year in the White House. As the clock ticks toward 2008, speculation grows over whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney will indeed launch a widely feared attack on Iran.
The latest report from the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says war planning is intensifying. Writing in the /New Yorker/, Hersh reveals that the White House recently requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff to redraw longstanding plans for a possible attack. According to Hersh, the Bush administration’s rationale for bombing Iran has shifted from Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program to Iran’s role in Iraq. Hersh writes, “What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.’ The focus is no longer a broad bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere.
On Sunday, John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, called for the US to attack Iran and overthrow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bolton said, “If we were to strike Iran, it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change...The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.”
*AMY GOODMAN: *Seymour Hersh joins us now from Washington, D.C. Welcome to /Democracy Now!/, Sy. Lay out what you have learned.
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Yeah, well, actually, it’s funny. The plans have both intensified and they’re less intense, in this sense: the new plan that they’re talking about is much more limited, not a thousand points of light. It doesn’t involve massive Air Force bombing attacks. Most of the Iranian nuclear facilities that were the initial target are—many of them are underground, one in particular, Natanz, where the centrifuges are located, where Iran is enriching uranium, seventy-five very hard feet underground. And the bombing plans were extreedingly—you had to put one bomb after another with no guarantee of knocking down the facility.
So what they’ve done—and what happened, really, is this government finally realized that they had not been able to sell the American people on their view of the Iranian nuclear threat. In other words, it simply wasn’t working. Unlike in 2003, when we were sort of mushroom cloud into going along with the Iraqi war, the American public did not respond in any noticeable way to a fear. They didn’t share the fear of the leadership in the White House and many in the Israeli government of a nuclear-armed Iran. Maybe it was just a question of American credibility. You know, we cried wolf once before.
And so, what happened is that—you could see it over the summer, Amy and Juan—you could see the conversation with the White House grow more and more intense about—not about nuclear weapons in Iran, but the Iranians coming across the border, the Revolutionary Guard, the al-Quds Brigade, one of its commando units, coming across the border and killing American—or helping to kill American and coalition—that is, British—soldiers. So that was the new sort of mantra for this summer.
And underneath it lay a notion that, well, if we can’t sell the notion that Iran is a nuclear threat, we can certainly sell the American people on the notion that Iran is responsible for killing Americans and others and that any action we take—limited action, less intense in terms of a kinetic force—any limited action would be more saleable, would be accepted more readily by the American people, and, more significantly, or most significantly, really, the international community might not go ape over it. And the Brits, for example, I write, expressed interest. Nobody’s saying anything; nobody is committing to it, and there’s been certainly no order to do this. This is just a new plan that has one great advantage: it’s something that could be sold, not only to us, but also to some of the allies, and therefore it becomes much more arguable inside the government.
*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And, Sy Hersh, what’s been the impact on all of this of the apparent refusal of the International Atomic Energy Agency to go along with the Bush administration’s picturing of the nuclear development and research in Iran’ In your old paper, the /New York Times/, several articles recently are questioning Mohamed ElBaradei’s role in all of this.
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, look, there’s nothing but bad blood between ElBaradei, the Egyptian who runs the—who’s the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency—basically the position there in Vienna, as I see it or as I’m told by the people I know there, is this, that Iran has not been very successful in enriching uranium. In the last report they filed—I think August the 30th—they made the point— the IAEA reported that Iran had only been able to enrich uranium, after all these years, to 3.67% enrichment, even below the 4% or 5% you need to run a peaceful atomic reactor, a non-military reactor, well below the 90% you need. That doesn’t mean Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons ambitions. It doesn’t mean that it won’t eventually get to 90% if it keeps on working on it. But it does mean that there’s no near threat at all.
And it just so happens that in the White House they have finally come to terms in the Vice President’s office, and I assume in the President’s office—I don’t know much about what goes on with Bush—but in the Vice President’s office, they’ve come to terms with the more or less general consensus with the American intelligence community and most of the European Community that Iran is a minimum of five years away. Iran has been five years away from the bomb, oh, for fifteen or twenty years. I wrote a story about Iran in late 2001 that said then five years away.
It’s always been five years away.
There’s no evidence that Iran is significantly into weapons fabrication or that Iran has done any of the kind of testing it needs to do to develop an actual warhead. And so, they are enriching, and they may have ambitions, but there’s no rush. And ElBaradei has been saying that. And he’s getting—I wrote some pretty harsh things in the magazine about his view. He believes that the United States has essentially been lying and misrepresenting the data. And he feels that they’ve really been doing—playing fast and loose with some very important information— you know, that is, where the Iranians are for their own short-term political goals, the goals sort of that are articulated by Bolton.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Sy Hersh, I wanted to go to the reaction of the White House to your piece. White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked about your article at Monday’s news briefing.
*REPORTER: *This weekend, the /New Yorker/ magazine came out with
an article claiming that this summer the President, or at least
the White House, in general, asked the Joint Chiefs to redraw
plans to attack Iran. Is that true’
*DANA PERINO: *Look, you know, I’m glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in the /New Yorker/ magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it.
*REPORTER: *So the President—
*DANA PERINO: *The President has said that he believes that there is a diplomatic solution that we can use to solve the Iranian problem. And that’s why we’re working with our allies to get there.
*REPORTER: *That’s what he said before we went to Iraq, too.
*REPORTER: *But what’s the—can you answer actually on the substance of whether or not the White House asked—I mean, if it’s not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You could say that, but—
*DANA PERINO: *We don’t discuss such things, Ed.
*REPORTER: *-- what about the substance of whether we—
*DANA PERINO: *We don’t discuss such things. What we have said and what we are working towards is a diplomatic solution in Iran. What the President has also said is that as a President, as a commander-in-chief—and any commander-in-chief—would not take any option off the table. But the option that we are pursuing right now is diplomacy.
*REPORTER: *But the article very specifically said that this summer in a video conference—secure video conference with Ambassador Crocker, the President said that he was thinking about “hitting Iran” and also—
*DANA PERINO: *I’m not going to comment on—one, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have been at any—at that type of a meeting. I don’t know. I’m not going to comment on any possible—any possible scenario that an anonymous source, you know, continues to feed into Sy Hersh. I’m just not going the do it.
*REPORTER: *Why should anybody believe that the President wants diplomatic solutions’ He said that before going into Iraq.
*DANA PERINO: *The President sought a diplomatic solution in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein defied the UN Security Council seventeen times.
*REPORTER: *Some of the history we’ve learned since suggests otherwise.
*DANA PERINO: *That the President didn’t—that Saddam Hussein
defied seventeen UN Security Council resolutions’
*REPORTER: *No, that the President was intent on going to war in Iraq in any case.
*DANA PERINO: *No, the President pursued a diplomatic option. He went to the UN Security Council, and then we proceeded.
*HELEN THOMAS: *Did he consult—would he tell Congress before
attacking Iran—before he attacks Iran’
*DANA PERINO: *Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran.
*HELEN THOMAS: *I’m asking you, does he feel committed to ask
Congress for permission’
*DANA PERINO: *We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.
*AMY GOODMAN: *White House spokesperson Dana Perino. Your response,
Seymour Hersh’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, obviously, look, there’s a lot of responses to make. One, the most obvious one is if he really—if they are pursuing a diplomatic solution, why not talk to the Iranians, why not talk to the Syrians, why not talk to Hamas, why not talk to Hezbollah’ He doesn’t talk to people he doesn’t like. And all of those people, those four groups, are in the sites, are in the targets, of this White House right now, along with, of course, Iraq.
And so, it’s real simple. If he’s really interested in diplomacy, this game they have going now—the game right now, the American and British and German, the allied game, the Western game, with Iraq—the situation with Iraq is this—Iran, rather: they’re enriching uranium. Our position to the Iranians is: when you stop enriching uranium, shut it down, we will then start talking to you about your enrichment. That’s the American—that is absolutely the bargaining position. We will not talk to them until they stop. And it’s sort of—it’s real simple, if you really are talking. And so, the rest of the stuff is chit-chat.
I don’t think she—you know, I just—I don’t, you know—there was a video conference, and it was even more explicit than we in the /New Yorker/ wrote it. The President was very clear that he is interested in going across the border and whacking the Iranians.
And in the belief—and I do believe this President believes it, just like I still believe the President believed there were WMDs there— and, you know, I actually listen to George Bush, always have listened to him, and I take him at his word, which, of course, scares the hell out of me. But I think he really believes that the Iranians are responsible for training terrorists, not only Shia terrorists, Iran’s Shia, some of the southern—the government now that controls Iraq is a Shia government—but he also believes, and the American administration has said, that the Iranians are supporting the Sunnis, the insurgency, and also even al-Qaeda, which is another Sunni—the jihadist al-Qaeda. And there’s just—I can tell you, as I write in this article, indeed, Iran may be doing all of that, but there’s a tremendous dispute about all of those assertions inside the American government. There’s just a lot of questions about it inside the government. They don’t see the case as being nearly as strong as the White House is saying in public.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Seymour Hersh, we have to break, but we’re going to come back to you. Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, has a major expose about the administration’s plan for Iran in the latest /New Yorker/. Back with him in a minute.
[break]
*AMY GOODMAN: *Our guest, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour
Hersh, his latest piece in the /New Yorker/, ‘Shifting Targets: The
Administration’s Plan for Iran.’ Juan’
*JUAN GONZALEZ: *Sy Hersh, I’d like to ask you—that clip that we
played just a few minutes ago about the White House in the press
conference there, it sounded like it was Helen Thomas asking whether
President Bush would notify Congress before taking action or not. Your
sense of what you heard from your sources’ Is this likely to be, in
essence, a surprise attack, that the President notifies the Congress
afterwards’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *I actually—since I’m so used to believing that they don’t deal with Congress at all, it’s nothing I’ve focused on, except the Congress is—in general, one could say the Congress is the last thought. In this case, I think they will probably, on the day of the morning of a raid, brief Congress, you know, call on the leadership as the raid is in progress. That’s been done. And my understanding is when the Israelis hit Syria the other week—remember, I think September the 6th, the raid in Syria—the Israelis actually told some of their allies, the Jordanians and the Egyptians, just an hour before the raid, and us, too. Of course, we were deeply involved, as we always are. But I think that kind of notification, we’re talking about.
There’s—look, there wasn’t much use for the Congress when it was Republican-run; now it’s Democratic-run. You can imagine how little— the President thinks he has this whole notion we’ve been struggling with for seven-six years now, the Unitarian—you know, the notion of the neoconservatives that the President has all power. This is a Cheney notion that’s very dominant Dick Cheney, that he has—the executive powers of the presidency were diminished under Clinton, and they’ve been restored under Bush.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Sy Hersh, what do you know about the raid on Syria,
Israeli raid that has not gotten a lot of attention’ Was it a test run
to see how Syria would respond if they flew over’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Let me write about it, Amy.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Well, let me play a clip of General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. In his report to Congress last month, he accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq.
*GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: *In the past six months, we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Quds Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the international zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of this Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.
*AMY GOODMAN: *General David Petraeus. Seymour Hersh’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, that’s way over the top. He made a lot of
assertions that are really seriously questioned by the intelligence
community, and, again, in the article, I deal with that, that particular
-- some of that statement, making the point that, look, Iran—the Shia inside Iraq under Saddam were beaten down, were really humiliated. He had his foot on their neck constantly. And their only support they had, the Iranian—the Shias in Iran—Iran was dominated by the Sunnis and by the Baath Party and by Saddam, who had—and so, their only support they had for three decades has been Iran.
And if you remember the history, after the first Gulf War that ended in
early 1992 at that horrible massacre along the highway of death, this
Bush and Cheney—Cheney was then the Secretary of Defense, and Bush’s
father was the President—we decided not to go take the war all the
way to Baghdad, dethrone Saddam. And more significantly, we allowed
Saddam and the Sunni leadership to conduct—use helicopters to
overcome a Shia revolt, in which the stories are just thousands, if not
tens of thousands, of Shia were slaughtered by Saddam as we stood aside
right after the war. And the Shia were very bitterly disappointed with
us, because they thought we had sort of set it up for them to do an
overthrow and then didn’t support them, in fact aided the Sunni
leadership. Iran was the only country that supported the Shia then.
Most of the Shia leadership right now, Prime Minister Maliki, lived in exile for many years in Iran. The relationship between Iran and the Prime Minister and his office and the Shia leadership of Iraq is very intense. And the idea that they’re running a proxy war against the—
Iran is running a proxy war against the Iraqi people, the truth is that
Iran is there with the Iraqi people. Iraqi people, that is, the Shia.
There’s no proxy war, as he describes it. Iran is simply a big simple
player.
And we have basically—the strategic mistake of the White House in this whole process was, we were so anxious to overthrow the Sunnis and the Baath Party and make sure none of them got into office, we delegated the country to the Shiites, and they believed—the neocons—and this was a great debate in ‘03 -- the neocons were absolutely insistent that the Iraqi Shia would be nationalists and support Iraq and not defer to Iran. And that’s not true. They’re much closer to Iran than to the Sunnis or to the Kurds or to the Americans.
*JUAN GONZALEZ: *Sy Hersh, I’d like to ask you—those of us who are
old enough to remember Vietnam see some parallels between what’s going
on now and—is Iran the new Cambodia, in essence, a failed war being
expanded by an administration that remains intransigent in its view of
what needs to be done’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, it’s much bigger than Cambodia and much more potentially destabilizing. Iran is right now—look, this is a government, American government, that’s losing a war. Nothing is going right. If you want to believe the surge, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you. The surge is simply another example of ethnic cleansing. It’s not going to go anywhere. Yes, things are safer in Anbar Province where the surge is going on, because all of the Shiites, 100,000 or so, who live there are gone. There’s been ethnic cleansing. So basically the President is into ethnic cleansing, although he’s not saying it. That’s probably one way we’re going to creep in the next four or five years, if it goes that long.
But, you know, the real problem with this analogy is this: in Vietnam, we lost 58,000 Americans. It was a much—we’ve got, what, almost 3,800 -- 7%, 6%-7% -- deaths.
And yet, Vietnam was always a strategic war. When the war ended, we were driven off. Four years later, they’re inviting us back, the leadership of the unified Vietnam, to play monopoly, build hotels and do tourism business, and we were doing it. Everything is peaceful now.
This war in Iraq with the Muslims that we’re into and this sort of hostility we have to the Shia world and to Hamas and to Syria, this is strategic. We are putting ourselves into a situation where, for the next twenty, thirty years, we could be in a serious free-for-all, particularly if we go into Iran. It would be—the war would spread. There’s no question, the Iranians will respond asymmetrically. By that, I mean they won’t necessarily hit Israel or hit targets in America; they might just do things in the Gulf; they certainly would do things inside Iraq and inside Afghanistan. If they start doing things inside Afghanistan, they have to protect their borders. We control the countries on both sides of Iran: Afghanistan and Iraq. If they start doing things in Afghanistan to protect their position, Pakistan may come in. You’re looking at unbelievably strategic issues here. And Vietnam never crossed the tactical barrier. It was stupid, stupid, stupid, and killer, killer, killer, but nothing as potentially devastating to the lives of all of us as what this President is doing now and, if he expands the war, what he will do.
And why, Juan and Amy, why the American public isn’t saying in heated tones: Why doesn’t this President talk to people’ Why isn’t he talking to the Iranians and to the—the Iranians have been telling us in these various conferences—you know, Ambassador Crocker has had three meetings now, I think, with his counterpart, his ambassador from Iraq in Baghdad, and the video conference I quote in the article, the one that was mentioned in the White House press statement where Bush was bragging about what he wants to do—braggadocio, really—in those conferences, the Iranians have never asked for our troops to be gone, get out. What they keep on saying is, ‘We can help you.’
There is no incentive for Syria, for Iran, for Jordan, Kuwait, all of whom flooded with refugees coming out of Iraq, there’s no incentive for them to want the kind of destabilization they have inside Iraq. I mean, we now have a new refugee crisis that’s going to be probably worse than the Palestinian crisis. If you remember, after the Israelis invaded Israel in ‘48, we generated a million or so refugees in Syria, in Lebanon, elsewhere in the world. They’re still in camps in as fetid positions, you know, a horrible situation. But now we have—right now, Syria has anywhere from 1.6 million to 2 million refugees—Syria is a country of 17 million, led by Alawites, a sort of derivative faction of Shiism—mostly Sunni. And now they have 1.6 million or 2 million Sunni refugees in their country. I mean, that’s very destabilizing to Syria. Same in Jordan, same in Kuwait. It’s a mess that nobody wants to talk about in this country.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Sy Hersh, can you talk about the role of Condoleezza Rice
and Vice President Dick Cheney’ And is Dick Cheney in the ascendancy,
because so many of President Bush’s inner circle have deserted him, have
left’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, that’s always a great question. You know, there’s a great debate. I had somebody from inside call me about a meeting that took place. Rumsfeld was back at the White House the other day. I have no idea what for. But he was there, maybe—
*AMY GOODMAN: *Maybe he was fleeing the protesters at Stanford, where he is coming to be a fellow at the Hoover Institute.
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *No, I think he was there talking about this situation. But, anyway, it was interesting that he was back. Somebody called me, and he said he was talking about a German official who came to town to get a briefing, among other things, on this issue, the new targeting, and he said, ‘Well, he may have seen Hadley,’ who is the—Steve Hadley, the National Security Adviser, ‘and I hear he saw POTUS’—the President—‘and also Darth Vader.’ And he knew I understood that to mean Cheney. This is somebody inside the government.
Cheney is very powerful. I think the most powerful aspect of Cheney includes the fact that he’s very, very bright. He singled out Elliott Abrams, who is the President’s National Security Adviser, the refugee from Iran-Contra, who is a big—a very super neoconservative—his father-in-law is Norman Podhoretz—very pro-Israel in the sense that he believes that as Israel goes, so goes the American policy, I would think up to a great length. And Abrams is a key player.
Condoleezza Rice, my friend says it’s always a chronic debate: where is she’ She favors a limited bombing, so I hear. If you want to really get a dark scenario, Cheney has gone along with the limited bombing. Basically, they call the limited bombing the third option, because there’s one option to do nothing; the other one is to bring in the Air Force and rake—you know, rake everything; the third option being this one. And, by the way, the Air Force would not be a big player in this. The Navy would be a player in this limited option: cruise missiles, Navy F-18s doing some attacks, some Marines, some Special Forces, etc. Not inconsiderable, but nothing like the Air Force plan. And I understand that’s a plan that she would agree to if negotiations fail. But right now, her position is negotiations in public. I don’t know where she stands.
*JUAN GONZALEZ: *And, Sy Hersh, I’d like to ask you, the role of the
commercial media here in the United States, in terms of what—you were
raising the issue of where the American people are in terms of any Iran
assault—the whole furor that arose at the United Nations over the
visit of Ahmadinejad and his speech at Columbia’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Well, you know, look, we have to have our Hitlers. America seems to thrive on Hitlers after Hitler went out. You know, we had Khrushchev. We had Stalin. We had Mao. We had Zhou Enlai. We had Gaddafi for a little while. We had Khomeini. We just bounce along from Hitler to Hitler. So he became the hit guy, Ahmadinejad.
Look, he says terrible things. It’s very stupid, what he says about the Holocaust. It’s counterproductive. He’s obviously very stubborn, but he’s not stupid. I wish the American press would have published some of his speech to the UN, because it was a pretty interesting speech, the actual speech, what he said. There were a lot of elements in it that were of great interest, and not at all irrational. And I asked somebody about the famous line about homosexuality, because it seemed so inept. And the Arab view is, if you talk to—I’m talking about American Arabs and international, my friends overseas and those who know Farsi, what he said was—and I’m not defending him; I’m just telling you what they say he said: ‘Homosexuality is not a problem in Iraq.’ In other words, it’s just not a problem.
*AMY GOODMAN: *In Iran.
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *In Iran, rather. They don’t—it’s just not a problem. He didn’t mean—I don’t know whether the translation was flat, you know, when translations are always pretty bad, as any of you know. I’ve given speeches in foreign countries, and getting the translation back is always pretty comical. It’s never very good.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards—have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week’s Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.
*MIKE GRAVEL: *This is fantasy land. We’re talking about ending the war. My god, we’re just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because what’s happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
*TIM RUSSERT: *Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.
*SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: *[laughter]
*AMY GOODMAN: *That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds,
Seymour Hersh. Your response’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of—right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.
*AMY GOODMAN: *And Obama and Edwards’
*SEYMOUR HERSH: *I—you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.
*AMY GOODMAN: *Seymour Hersh, thank you very much for being with us, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His piece in the /New Yorker/ is called ‘Shifting Targets: The Administration’s Plan for Iran.’
www.democracynow.org
Madame President,
Excellencies,
What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity;
the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against
others and oppress them.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination,
accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the
resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their
borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic
routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered
in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to
justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions,
where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the
rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is
the seat of global justice?
A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third
generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the
development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and
democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against
other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with
the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers
producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before
the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with
the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive
arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these
instruments of death? Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and
tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and
justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither
away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most
global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented
with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win
hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion
and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons
and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has
it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and
animosity among nations?
B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities
Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years.
Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The
occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of
the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt
efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society,
and instigate civil strife.
There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.
It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.
Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?
Who can ensure Iraq’s security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region.
Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the
occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security
Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?
Consider the situation in Palestine:
The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under
the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was
occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants;
it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger
population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by
the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others
with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of
the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great
tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary
refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can
any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United
Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?
The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are
so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about
them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the
raison d’tre of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment
of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has
been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war
and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been
used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the
people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet
among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has
unfolded before our eyes.
Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.
Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can’t the Security Council take any steps?
Let me here address Lebanon:
For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and
bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of
the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the
aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council
of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for
a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel
scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were
persistently repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?
C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community
Excellencies,
I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the
NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes
of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights?
Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from
nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for
non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a
bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security
Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights
of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other
countries?
The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.
Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn’t it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?
Excellencies,
A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that
regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.
Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;
Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.
-Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.
-Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?
-The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.
Excellencies,
The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the
United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit
aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the
UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members
address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the
reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security
Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of
prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case
of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
Excellencies,
How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior
of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the
entire organization and its affiliated agencies.
The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.
Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.
Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the
legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably
established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment,
of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working
methods of the Council.
Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and
arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn’t this generation or future
generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to
live?
Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security
Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the
role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be
respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on
the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council
from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of
the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as
a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting
balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.
Madame President,
Excellencies,
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in
international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the
teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be
guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God’s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to
themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through
influence and pressure, position themselves as the “international community”.
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the
sweet events and developments in today’s world.
We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.
Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.
Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.
The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its
Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one
another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.
He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue
and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace
be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ
(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called
humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible
to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of
human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?
I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just
and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect
righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and
who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Posts
