Hersh Is At It Again

I would be neglecting my duties as a blogger if I didn't link to this Seymour Hersh article, outlining his anonymous sources' assessments of the Bush Administration's intentions regarding Iran. The article is rather lengthy but is certainly worth the time. It is vintage Hersh as well, with sources described as "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon," and "A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror." He even cites a member of the House Appropriations Committee who was not briefed about Iran, but knows someone who was.

Regardless, Hersh provides insight into debate within the Administration over how to deal with Iran:

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. [...]

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [a former senior intelligence official] added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran without success, the former intelligence official said. The White House said, "Why are you challenging this? The option came from you."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

This is merely a taste of how Hersh's article reads. He elaborates further on the tactical nuclear option (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) and discusses mock operations that are already occurring on the Arabian Sea, among other things. Do yourself a favor and go read the whole thing. It's fascinating.