Open Sy Hersh thread
I am on the road and will not be blogging up a storm for the next few days. However, continuing our conversation on Iran, readers should avail theselves of this Sy Hersh story in the New Yorker on U.S. preparations to attack Iran and comment away. The two paragraph that stood out for me: A ...
I am on the road and will not be blogging up a storm for the next few days. However, continuing our conversation on Iran, readers should avail theselves of this Sy Hersh story in the New Yorker on U.S. preparations to attack Iran and comment away. The two paragraph that stood out for me: A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was ?absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb? if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do ?what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,? and ?that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.? One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that ?a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.? He added, ?I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ?What are they smoking?? ? I think I'm at the point where I don't want any more legacies from the Bush administration. UPDATE: Tyler Cowen offers his thoughts. Here's another question for readers: even if the intel on Iran is a slam dunk -- is anyone else bothered by the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons as bunker-busters to ensure that Iran doesn't acquire nukes?
I am on the road and will not be blogging up a storm for the next few days. However, continuing our conversation on Iran, readers should avail theselves of this Sy Hersh story in the New Yorker on U.S. preparations to attack Iran and comment away. The two paragraph that stood out for me:
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was ?absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb? if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do ?what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,? and ?that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.? One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that ?a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.? He added, ?I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ?What are they smoking?? ?
I think I’m at the point where I don’t want any more legacies from the Bush administration. UPDATE: Tyler Cowen offers his thoughts. Here’s another question for readers: even if the intel on Iran is a slam dunk — is anyone else bothered by the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons as bunker-busters to ensure that Iran doesn’t acquire nukes?
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.