From The New Yorker comes this article by journalist Seymour Hersh, known for breaking the Abu Ghraib scandal:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
It's a very long article, but in it he claims the US neo-cons are intent upon launching a new war in Iran, presumably (I take it) before the end of Bush's term. He claims US military special forces are on reconnaissance missions right now inside Iran looking for good targets and getting the scoop on WMD places (so we won't look like idiots twice in a row). Also there is reference to an initiative by Donald Rumsfeld to use military special forces more like CIA ops do--search-and-destroy, recon, assassination, etc.
Here's a couple of quotes:
Quote:
The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.
Quote:
In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”
Pentagon spokesman *somebody* dismisses the article as factually inaccurate to the point it should be seen as uncredible in its entirety (sorry on quote, I don't like the Pentagon).
I see three possibilities:
1. Seymour Hersh is wrong or is lying. Considering his Abu Ghraib story, and some other story he got right, this doesn't seem very likely. Possible sure, but I'd think he'd be fairly careful in keeping his rep. He is a flaming liberal, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
2. This is a misinformation propaganda campaign to frighten Iran into compliance with nuclear negotiations (as Hersh theorizes briefly in the article). Hersh's sources could be feeding him this info. The problem here is one of threat vs. action. Bush and the neo-cons don't seem the type to dangle something like this then NOT follow through if Iran doesn't take the bait by relaxing their nuke stance.
3. The article is entirely true and we'll be at war with Iran sometime in the next couple of years. Needless to say this is a distinct possibility considering the utter incompetence and idiocy of Bush and the neocons.