The New York Times Blog Reacts to Sy Hersh’s Latest Act of Journalism

More
than two years after his reporting stoked worries that there might be
another American war in the Middle East, Seymour Hersh is getting a lot
of attention with another installment in this week’s New Yorker titled “Preparing the Battlefield.”

In 2006,
his major revelation was that the United States had accelerated
military planning against Iran. His new article focuses on a “major
escalation” of covert activities against Iran following a finding, or
declaration, signed by President Bush late last year. The operations
are detailed by anonymous sources (read the full article here), including one who provided the big picture:

“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear
ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime
change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and it involved
“working with opposition groups and passing money.”

Congressional leaders on intelligence,
including some key Democrats, have backed the finding by approving $400
million to carry it out, the article said. Already there are fervent
protests on left-leaning blogs similar to those voiced after the warrantless wiretapping program was revealed: “But what about Congressional oversight?”

The larger concern, of course, is whether the White House is laying
the groundwork for an attack before the Bush administration leaves
office.

While the article states that “clandestine operations against Iran
are not new,” it also says there are “serious questions” in Congress
about whether American forces are going too far. Since the Bush
administration does not seek oversight for covert military activities,
Mr. Hersh wrote that “Congress has been given only a partial view of
how the money it authorized may be used.”

The administration, the C.I.A. and lawmakers declined to comment on
the report, but Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq,
responded on CNN on Sunday. “I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are
not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or
anywhere else,” he said.

The article refers to “a secret military task force … operating in
Iran” and an anonymous member of Congress drawing the line thusly: “No
lethal action, period” inside the country. Senior American officials “may not tell the ambassador everything” going on inside Iran, Mr. Hersh suggested on CNN on Sunday.

The Iranian government seemed to be observing the back-and-forth
with great interest. Press TV, a satellite channel sponsored by Iran’s
state-run television operation, quickly published reports on the piece, Mr. Crocker’s reaction and a more run-of-the-mill threat from an Iranian general who announced that the military was “digging 320,000 graves for invaders.”

The article by Mr. Hersh, who uncovered the My Lai massacre in
Vietnam in 1969, prompted outrage on the left and dismissals on the
right. “IT’S HERSH,” Redstate, a frequent critic of Mr. Hersh, wrote. “COME ON!” The blogger was referring to some criticisms that he has a tendency to inflate information that is critical of the government.

Several bloggers seemed aware of the issue, warning readers that the
important news on Congressional approval of the covert operations seems
to be mixed with less reliable information.

Regarding one part of the article that mentions a meeting held by
Vice President Cheney on “how to create a casus belli between Tehran
and Washington,” Isaac Chotiner of The New Republic asks,
“Why is this buried at the very end of the piece? Why is not followed
up on even slightly?” And Foreign Policy magazine’s lead blogger, Blake
Hounshell, linked to the New Yorker story with a reservation: “Let’s just say that it’s far from certain the United States is doing what he claims.”

Laura Rozen, a national security writer, included further caution on a source quoted several times in the article, Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel.
“In the end, I just don’t think the Bush administration is trying to
seriously destabilize the Iranian regime or change it,” Ms. Rozen
wrote.

The conclusion echoed a news analysis in The New York Times a day after it reported that Israel had held a military exercise seemingly aimed at Iran.

As it happens, Ms. Rozen asked several experts about the possibility
of a U.S. attack on Iran for an article on MotherJones.com just before
the Hersh piece emerged. With sound bites like “very, very unlikely,” “quite low,” “less rather than more likely,” there was far less alarm than in The New Yorker.

But there were quite a few caveats in their comments as well,
reflecting that no outsider to the decision-making process can judge
the matter with assurance. And in any case, there’s a wild card:
Israel. Or as Jacqueline Shire, one of the analysts talking to Mother
Jones, said: “In short, who knows?”