Seymour Hersh’s Powerful Charge: US Backing Al-Qaeda Sympathizers to Counter Iran

In the aftermath of 9/11, the US began its assault on al-Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups. Fast
forward to 2003: the US invades Iraq, in part because Hussein supposedly has ties to al-Qaeda, and a new Shiite-led government is eventually created. Now fast forward another couple of years: we find that the Shiite government is suddenly getting too cozy with Iran, the major leader of the Shiite Middle East. The Saudis, the major Sunni power in the region, get nervous. And so, too, are the hawks in Washington who fear a potentially nuclear Iran. The result: the Bush administration is now looking to contain Shiite power at all costs.

This "re-direction" has involved developing contingency plans for a military (most likely aerial) assault on Iran. And, the Bush administration, in conjunction with the Saudis, is even now backing (i.e. funneling financial aid to) radical Sunni groups who oppose Shiite authority, even though they also amazingly have ties with al-Qaeda. Bizarrely, we're now indirectly helping the very enemy that we initially set out to destroy. Or so that's the claim of the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who famously broke the stories on My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

Hersh's claims are spelled out in a new article appearing in the latest edition of The New Yorker, which is well worth a read. (His other New Yorker pieces on the Iran attack plan appear here, here, and here.) You'll also want to give a listen to his energetic interview on NPR's Fresh Air (iTunes - Feed - Mp3), where he covers much of the same ground.

On a related note, we'd also refer you to a recent program aired by Open Source. It, too, deals with likelihood of a US invasion of Iran, and tries to figure out whether the Bush administration's hardening rhetoric is simply a risky negotiation strategy, a way to force the Iranians to the table, or whether it's a prelude to an almost certain war. You can listen here (Itunes - Mp3) or check out the related piece on the Open Source blog.


by | Permalink | Comments (1) |





Comments (1)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Terry Lechecul says:

    Should we remind people that the US supported Bin Laden when he brought in thousands of muhajeddins in Bosnia in the 90s?
    Back then, they were doing our job (the US is the one who got the muslims to back out of the 4 peace plans that would have averted war there), Bin Laden travelled freely there (Eve Prentice, the british journalist saw him) and we were led to believe that these fanatic killers were just out to take some mountain air.

    It bit us back when 9/11 hit but no one wants to talk about it even though we know that the planners were bosnia trained, just like we dont mention taht the only Madrid bombing suspect was caught in Bosnia or that almost all the S.Arabia Al Quaeda leaders were bosnian war veterans.

    Gee…were supporting them again?
    After creating them during the Carter years and using them during the Clinton, its nice to know that friends keep in touch no matter how much bad blood there is.

    Of course, this would demand that our media behaves slightly better than their communist counterparts and actually report news which dont just serve to confirm US foreign policy. People who read Pravda had a better idea what was happening in theworld than americans do.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast