Seymour M. Hersh: Shifting Targets

[133724]

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh


Raw Story: Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'

"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."

...

The sites in Iran being targeted however, reflect the change in the White House selling of armed conflict with Iran.

"Instead of... hitting the various facilities we know that exist, instead they're going to hit the Iranians as payback for hitting us ," Hersh told Blitzer in the CNN interview.

Such targets, Hersh says, would include Iran's Revolutionary Guard headquarters and other sites of Iran's alleged support for the insurgency in Iraq.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html


Here we go again; and again; and again...

[JDPriestly]

1. It's confusing.

We went into Iraq to rid it of Hussein and the dominance of the Sunni minority. The Shiites are no longer the downtrodden majority. They have allied themselves with their Shiite neighbor Iran, and now we want to rid Iraq of the Iranian allies of our allies the Shiites. Meanwhile we are arming some of the members of the Sunni minority and labeling others Al Qaeda. Do I have this right? And if so, what side are we on?

[lovuian]

2. it confirms Bush's new strategy going after Revolutionary Guards

hersh is right on its a smoke screen