Sy Hersh and Iran update
An addendum to Jeff's guest post on the coming shock and awe in Iran:
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh was on CNN's Late Edition today. Crooks and Liars has the video here. For more on Hersh's appearance, see TalkLeft and Think Progress.
Michelle Malkin claims that Hersh is blowing U.S. cover. Oh, so that's how the right will spin this. He's not wrong, he should just shut up. (Of course, the right has zero interest in open political discourse generally.)
My pal Joe Gandelman has an excellent round-up here. Make sure to read Jeff's post (link above), then head over to check out Joe's take at The Moderate Voice.
Then go see The Carpetbagger Report, where the Sunday Discussion Group is answering these questions: "Is this some kind of bluster intended to bolster European diplomacy? Is the Iranian threat legitimate? Is the threat of war Bush's new campaign strategy for the midterm cycle? If Bush's war planning is folly, what would a responsible Iran policy look like? How do Democrats approach the political element of this national security debate?"
More good stuff can be found at: The Heretik, NewsHog, Political Animal, The American Street, OxBlog, AmbivaBlog, Centerfield, The Glittering Eye, and Linkmeister, Comments from Left Field.
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh was on CNN's Late Edition today. Crooks and Liars has the video here. For more on Hersh's appearance, see TalkLeft and Think Progress.
Michelle Malkin claims that Hersh is blowing U.S. cover. Oh, so that's how the right will spin this. He's not wrong, he should just shut up. (Of course, the right has zero interest in open political discourse generally.)
My pal Joe Gandelman has an excellent round-up here. Make sure to read Jeff's post (link above), then head over to check out Joe's take at The Moderate Voice.
Then go see The Carpetbagger Report, where the Sunday Discussion Group is answering these questions: "Is this some kind of bluster intended to bolster European diplomacy? Is the Iranian threat legitimate? Is the threat of war Bush's new campaign strategy for the midterm cycle? If Bush's war planning is folly, what would a responsible Iran policy look like? How do Democrats approach the political element of this national security debate?"
More good stuff can be found at: The Heretik, NewsHog, Political Animal, The American Street, OxBlog, AmbivaBlog, Centerfield, The Glittering Eye, and Linkmeister, Comments from Left Field.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:33 PM
1 Comments:
It seems quite clear that this confrontation is about much more than Iran’s nuclear capability. Again, like with Iraq, nuclear development is being used as the Trojan Horse to sell a strike with wider strategic aims – regime change, stability of oil supply, to stop Iranian support for terror etc. Each can be debated on its own merits, but lets stop pretending that this is just about nuclear weapons. If it was, then the diplomatic option wouldn't have been sidelined in 2003 by the administaration.
This is clearly because diplomacy can only serve to stop nuclear production. It will not result in regime change, or in a US ally in control, nor in permanent military bases in Iran. Just like in Iraq, containment may have worked to stop WMD production, but it was not deemed sufficient for wider administation aims. Have we learned nothing?
www.taylorowen.com
By
Anonymous, at 12:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home