Must Read from Sy Hersh in The New Yorker

Sy Hersh has a truly frightening article in this week's New Yorker on the Prez's plans for Iran. Yes, it's full of the deja vu stuff that's echoing the anti-Saddam campaign before we invaded Iraq. But this time they're talking nukes. Not threatening that Iran is going to develop nukes, but that we might use them ourselves. That's right, to dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, Bush might use nuclear weapons on them. There is the logic that they'd discover first hand the devastation nukes can cause, but then there's the flip side that the U.S. would do what previous generations considered the unthinkable.

I'm almost finding it difficult to write about, because the logical part of my brain says, surely not even George Bush would go that far. This seems a ridiculous conversation to have, because the minuses for staging a preemptive nuclear attack are so far beyond what the plusses could possibly be. But on the other hand, do we want the warning shot about a preemptive nuclear attack to come in the form of a mushroom cloud?

There are too many substantive passages in this piece to quote them all, but here's one.

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?' "

And then there's this.

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been "no formal briefings," because "they're reluctant to brief the minority. They're doing the Senate, somewhat selectively."
The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the talk of war. "The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There's no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."

Go read it yourself. This is information we can't ignore. If there's any justice in the world, this won't be the last time you hear about it before action is taken in Iran. Of course, I sometimes wonder if it's a sucker bet to back justice in the world.