Guys, if this is really true, we're seriously going to f'ed in the a. This would be at the very least a disaster.

Quote » WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.An Iranian flag flies outside the building containing the reactor of Bushehr nuclear power plant, south of Tehran.

An Iranian flag flies outside the building containing the reactor of Bushehr nuclear power plant, south of Tehran.

White House, CIA and State Department officials declined comment on Hersh's report, which appears in this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.

President Bush and Vice President d!ck Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The new article, "Preparing the Battlefield," is the latest in a series of articles accusing the Bush administration of preparing for war with Iran. He based the report on accounts from current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.

"As usual with his quarterly pieces, we'll decline to comment," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told CNN.

"The CIA, as a rule, does not comment on allegations regarding covert operations," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, denied U.S. raids were being launched from Iraq, where American commanders believe Iran is stoking sectarian warfare and fomenting attacks on U.S. troops.

"I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else," Crocker said.

Hersh said U.S. efforts were staged from Afghanistan, which also shares a border with Iran.

He said the program resulted in "a dramatic increase in kinetic events and chaos" inside Iran, including attacks by Kurdish separatists in the country's north and a May attack on a mosque in Shiraz that killed 13 people.

The United States has said it is trying to isolate Iran diplomatically in order to get it to come clean about its nuclear ambitions. But Bush has said "all options" are open in dealing with the issue.[/quote]
Modified by smockers83 at 11:16 PM 6/29/2008

Ugh.

For once, these two clowns need to listen to the US/World intelligence community.

The United States is not militarily able to wage effective war on Iran without a draft, and the cause of stopping a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist will NOT generate sufficient political will for a draft, period.

This is a complete non-starter, and I hope to hell they realize that before they start a 2nd mess.

And Iran WILL get nuclear capability eventually, it's going to happen. I'm actually not even particularly worried about it, as all it will mean is that they will have a little edgy MAD with Israel. If we didn't want this to happen, we never should have given Israel nuclear arms in the first place.

Why the hell do reporters like killing covert operatives? They have spies here, we have spies there. It's a fact of life. Hell we spy on our allies. Making our end public just gives Iran a card to play against us, because most people are too sheltered to realize what really goes on in the world. It's better that way. The world is a disgusting mess. Those operations had the potential to save millions of lives, but are now in jeopardy. Maybe Iran was not doing anything wrong as they claim, wouldn't these operations have proved it? The media can not be trusted anymore, they have become big business just like the people they claim to despise. They don't report good things a president does, because those stories don't sell papers or generate web traffic. All they care about is making money, not informing the public. This reporter should be shot for treason.

By your logic outting Richard nixon was a bad thing...

These operations have nothing to do with helping the country or saving lives. They ar esimply to make more money for coorporations in this country.

What? How does spying make more money for a corporation? You sir, are apparently one of the people that are too sheltered to realize what really goes on in the world. Why do people always say "it's the corporations trying to make money" for EVERYTHING. Come on now.

OriginalWheelman wrote:What? How does spying make more money for a corporation? You sir, are apparently one of the people that are too sheltered to realize what really goes on in the world. Why do people always say "it's the corporations trying to make money" for EVERYTHING. Come on now.

Ok, but the bottom line is that even IF Iran is a week away from workable nuclear weapons (not the case), Invasion is NOT the answer.

It is not a winnable conflict for the reasons I detailed above, so why are we instigating?

And as for the press, that's how they work, get used to it. It's not like it's just the US Press. Hell, organizations like AP and Reuters are damn near global entities, spread so far across the world they really don't need to answer to any particular government.

Besides, they got this info from somewhere. Someone leaked it, quite possibly on purpose. That's how the press finds out about stuff like this.

Someone prolly leaked it for cash.

Let me put it to you this way. If Iran is building nukes, and they won't let anyone in to investigate, how does one find out? You sneak over the fence and take a look around. It's far better than doing a full scale invasion to find out *Iraq*cough* No one wants war, no one wants the alternative.

OriginalWheelman wrote:Someone prolly leaked it for cash.

Let me put it to you this way. If Iran is building nukes, and they won't let anyone in to investigate, how does one find out? You sneak over the fence and take a look around. It's far better than doing a full scale invasion to find out *Iraq*cough* No one wants war, no one wants the alternative.

Ok, but then why would the White House order these "investigations" if all the major intelligence services are telling them that there's no weapons program?

How do we know what the investigations are for? There were similar operations before the current Iraq war, but they weren't to scout out WMDs. They were to identify SAM batteries and radar arrays, to identify potential targets for the airstrikes that would be the opening volley of the war. It wasn't academic, it was a tactical prelude to invasion.

That's why everyone is so worried about this, because that's what some people think they're doing again.

It's a real possibility that we may go to war. I seriously doubt that the US will take it's own invasion force in. But you do have to admit, there is a possibility of UN military action. While right now it seems unlikely, it is a possibility. If the government didn't prepare for it and it happened, they would be criticized for not being prepared. We prepare, and we get accused of instigating.

OriginalWheelman wrote:there is a possibility of UN military action

LOL

By that measure, there is also a "possibility" that Bob Barr will be elected POTUS.

This isn't preparing, this IS instigating. Iran has the ability to detect our stealth aircraft...you really think they are blind to this until its published in the NYTimes?

We did similar things, and had nearly identical intelligence prior to the Iraq conflict, the intelligence was ignored at every turn forthe sake of engaging.

For gods sake, Iran was willing to help us counter Al Qaeda when we were only in Afghanistan, now that they are basically surrounded by the US military are you surprised ther a little jumpy?

The real danger right now is Israel anyways...they do have nukes!

It's not having nukes that is the problem. It's covertly doing them in spite of international treaties. The treaties are in place to keep one of the most dangerous technologies known to man out of the hands of people that will use it with recklessness. Iran could have developed a legitimate weapons program, but it would have taken much longer. So they choose to subvert the treaties, the choose to deny inspectors, and they choose to defy the collective will of the world governments. That's what this is about, not just the nukes. Look at the big picture for once instead of rehashing what the media puts in the first paragraph of a story.

We had nearly identical intel before Iraq? Says who? How much of the intel have you seen? You don't know what's going on but you presume you do because NBC or CBS says this is what's happening.

If you think stealth aircraft are our only way of spying... Keep digging your grave.

OriginalWheelman wrote:They have spies here, we have spies there. It's a fact of life. Hell we spy on our allies.

Israel is one of the counties who legitimately have nukes. That is no comparison.

OriginalWheelman wrote:Iran could have developed a legitimate weapons program, but it would have taken much longer.

No.

Iran never would have recieved the go-ahead from the international community to begin a nuclear weapons program, that's what non-proliferation means. Not in a million years.

OriginalWheelman wrote:Israel is one of the counties who legitimately have nukes. That is no comparison.

Actually, Israel is an "undeclared nuclear state", meaning that they've neither officially declared their arsenal nor did they come by it through normal channels. The Israelis only have nukes because we gave them nukes "under the table" during the Six Days War, and they've retained them since then (and likely been re-equipped several times).

WE started nuclear escalation in the Mideast by giving Israel the weapons unilaterally. It was an awful idea and now the natural consequences of that are unfolding in Iran. Iran feels threatened by the Israelis (or at least can claim to be), and thus uses this as admittedly legitimate justification for wanting their own nuclear weapons.

It would be like if we gave the South Koreans nukes and then expected North Korea to not want their own program. That's not how it works, you need mutually assured destruction to have any sort of political workability.

Israel had a nuke program before the treaty and refused to sign it. Iran signed the NPT and then defied it.

As far as nukes for defense, that's not even possible. All nukes can do is retaliate, not defend.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:Iran never would have recieved the go-ahead from the international community to begin a nuclear weapons program, that's what non-proliferation means. Not in a million years.

Wkikpedia wrote:Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

They could have done it the right way. They choose not to.

In terms of functionality, yes, nukes are offensive and counter-offensive weapons. However, simply having them in your arsenal makes them a defensive weapon. Why is Earth still around after the Cold War? Because nukes acted as defensive weapons.

Agreed that one has to look at the bigger picture and realize Iran has been avoiding legitimacy in their situation. If you have nothing to hide, why not prove it to the rest of the world? Seems simple enough, right? Not if you have covert nuke operations going on that could be discovered.

However, if this report is true, that we are crossing into Iran covertly, it can be considered grounds for battle, escalating the situation beyond what it needs to be. Situations like this one during the Cold War caused great anxiety and fear between two nations. Don't instigate something that we don't need. Policy of containment will do just fine with fewer resources, which equals less money. Very successful way to deal.

smockers83 wrote:In terms of functionality, yes, nukes are offensive and counter-offensive weapons. However, simply having them in your arsenal makes them a defensive weapon. Why is Earth still around after the Cold War? Because nukes acted as defensive weapons.

To be fair though, no one really understood the tech back then. People were more prone to push the button, as the global consequences of a regional strike were much less understood. I forget the name of the incident, but we were almost all destroyed just because the Russians thought we were shooting at them. I understand the deterrent aspect of it, but a large scale nuclear attack is very unlikely today.

If we're talking about the Cold War, they were very aware of the disastrous effects if someone pushed the button. The public may not have been as aware as we are now, but those who had the power definitely knew. They talked about hitting the button more then than today because the threat was so severe, but its not really there anymore. Both sides were so scared of nuclear war that basically one side was just waiting for the day the other pushed the button. Read 13 Days by Robert Kennedy. Personal memoirs from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unrelated to the book, during that crisis, there was an instance where nuclear war almost started as we thought they fired at us with a nuke torpedo (didn't know it was nuked at the time) but was finally determined to be evasive maneuvers.

But yes, a large scale nuclear attack is unlikely today.

OriginalWheelman wrote:It's not having nukes that is the problem. It's covertly doing them in spite of international treaties.

If you think stealth aircraft are our only way of spying... Keep digging your grave.

Israel is one of the counties who legitimately have nukes. That is no comparison.

Kinda like how Israel got them from us by 'stealing' them. If we're arming the world we can't complain when those we armed make serious threats vs. other countries.

And obviously stealth aircraft aren't our only way of spying. The two active stealth aircraft we have ar both effectively bombers (Raptor and B2). Neither of them are intelligence aircraft...The point was that how are we going to perform a surgical strike when they can see us before we cross the border.

Oh and as a slightly amusing note, even if launched from Iraq (and they wouldnt ever base them there) the Raptors would need to refuel in midair to hit the nuclear facilities in Iran.

Stealth aircraft could enter Iranian airspace undetected, or maybe better put, untraceable. They might be able to detect them, but to trace them is completely different. But I doubt they have the technology to detect stealth aircraft. If they do, its most likely to be outdated Russian technology that isn't very accurate. And the Raptor has a range of 1800 miles and a combat radius of 471 miles...distance from Baghdad to Tehran is 431 miles.

OriginalWheelman wrote:Israel had a nuke program before the treaty and refused to sign it. Iran signed the NPT and then defied it.

As far as nukes for defense, that's not even possible. All nukes can do is retaliate, not defend.

They could have done it the right way. They choose not to.

I'm not sure you understand.

Whether Iran did or did not sign the nonproliferation treaty has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they'd ever be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons. The international community would NEVER have allowed Iran to develop nuclear arms regardless of whether or not they signed the treaty.

So no, they couldn't have "done it the right way". There is no internationally "legal" manner whatsoever in which Iran could have ever pursued a nuclear arms program.

The only reasonable way we can expect Iran to abandon their current program is for US to force the nuclear disarmament of Israel. Israel does NOT need nuclear arms and shouldn't have them, as it brings needless tension to the region.

If Iran left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, citing the nuclear capabilities of Israel, they would not be bound by the agreement. Then, Iran could develop nukes at will. Now that is not to say that the world would be ok with it. What I am saying is that by doing it this way, it would be much, much harder for the UN to justify forcibly disarming Iran. If they had done it this way, it would force the political pressure onto Israel to confirm or deny their stockpile. Denying it would draw UN investigation, and admitting it will put political pressure on them to disarm. Ultimately, we would end up with Israel in the NNPT, and probably Iran with limited weapons under the NNPT treaty, to keep them from withdrawing.

Wikipedia wrote:NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II).

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

These are articles of the First Pillar of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed. The designers of the treaty realized way back in 1968 that states might use nuclear reactors to make nuclear bombs, and put a clause in to keep them form doing it. Iran is going back on their word if they are developing nukes without resigning from the treaty. With this method, they are subject to the UN for punishment for violating the treaty.

smockers83 wrote:Stealth aircraft could enter Iranian airspace undetected, or maybe better put, untraceable. They might be able to detect them, but to trace them is completely different. But I doubt they have the technology to detect stealth aircraft. If they do, its most likely to be outdated Russian technology that isn't very accurate. And the Raptor has a range of 1800 miles and a combat radius of 471 miles...distance from Baghdad to Tehran is 431 miles.

The range you quoted is with external fuel tanks those aren't very stealth.

Its complete hypocracy to make threats of war over Iran not following the nonproliferation treaty. Should we have to prove to Saudi Arabia and every other country whos citizens we hold that we aren't violating the Geneva convention?

Whatever the case, not even Iran believes this report and dismissed it.