Monday, May 01, 2006
Hersh: US Special Forces Have Been In Iran Since At Least July of 2004
Here's another thing that you won't see on any American TV evening news show:
BBC News Monday, 17 January, 2005 US special forces 'inside Iran' Iran says its military is prepared for a US strike on its nuclear sites US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, says the American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target". Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.Note the date of the article. January 2005 minus six months = July 2004. So we've been trying to provoke Iran, with an actual military force inside their territory, for nearly two years. But of course, you won't find mention of this anyplace where the majority of Americans might find out about it.
Comments:
<< Home
Scott Ritter was warning us about this back in summer 2004. He laid out the basic invasion plan.
I think Bushco would rather not have a frontal assault ala Iraq. Best of all would be a "people's uprising." There are plenty of ethnic tensions to exploit. Second best would be provoking Iran into aggressive action through cross-border raids, as happened in Nicaragua during the dirty war there. If Iran did something unwise, the world might be persuaded that war isn't such a bad thing, as long as the US is doing the fighting.
But I think that plans A and B have failed, and the clock is running on Bushco.
The problem is that if they engage in a frontal assault-- the massive airstrike we have been hearing about, they will probably need to secure the Iranian seacoast fifty miles inland to prevent attacks on ships in the Gulf.
Oh, and to secure the oil, to make sure that China and Europe stay in line.
This is why military people have been leaking. They see that there is a very high probability that plan C is going to turn into a flustercuck with bangles.
Post a Comment
I think Bushco would rather not have a frontal assault ala Iraq. Best of all would be a "people's uprising." There are plenty of ethnic tensions to exploit. Second best would be provoking Iran into aggressive action through cross-border raids, as happened in Nicaragua during the dirty war there. If Iran did something unwise, the world might be persuaded that war isn't such a bad thing, as long as the US is doing the fighting.
But I think that plans A and B have failed, and the clock is running on Bushco.
The problem is that if they engage in a frontal assault-- the massive airstrike we have been hearing about, they will probably need to secure the Iranian seacoast fifty miles inland to prevent attacks on ships in the Gulf.
Oh, and to secure the oil, to make sure that China and Europe stay in line.
This is why military people have been leaking. They see that there is a very high probability that plan C is going to turn into a flustercuck with bangles.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
