In re: Seymore Hersh and plans for bombing of Iran: I think a lot of this talk about who leaked what and why it was leaked is irrelevant to the basic politics of the conjuncture: There are two basic explanations about the leaks Seymore Hersh reported:  1) The leaks are from dissidents in the defense and foreign policy bureaucracy who think that the Bush administration hawks are crazy for planning war and planning a "tactical" nuclear war, at that. 2) The leaks are authorized by the Bush Regime because the Bush hawks wants Iran to think that Bush is crazy enough to bomb them with nuclear weapons, no matter what the consequences will be.  What difference, does it make, for those of us who oppose U.S. terrorism if either assumption (1) or assumption (2) is closer to the truth?  If assumption (1) is true then the Bush administration is at the planning stage for a monumental war crime or crime against humanity.  If assumption (2) is true then the U.S. is using the threat of nuclear weapons to produce a monumental form of terror, that may lead to a war crime if the threat is not taken seriously.  Note, by definition, threatening to use an atomic bomb on another nation in these circumstances is simply a form of terrorism, that is if we wish to call things by their correct names. For those of us who wish to prevent atrocities, as planned or threatened by the Bush regime, the conclusion is the same in either case: organization against the atrocities, protest, education. At this point it is good to remember several things about U.S. policy planners.  It is official U.S. policy that the U.S. should be  looked at as the one nation that is always willing to drop the bomb.  It is also official U.S. policy that U.S. leaders should be seen by the rest of the world as "out of control" and a bit crazy.  The U.S.G. has never renounced first use of nuclear weapons, they have always kept it open as a possible "tactical" alternative.  Further, it was Nixon who invented the term "Madman Theory," when his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War was to let the North Vietnamese know that he was crazy enough to drop an atomic bomb.  The "Madman Theory" of U.S. foreign "coercive diplomacy" has been U.S. policy for many years now, but it was codified, as Chomsky and others have pointed out in the 1995 study, " Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," written by the Defense Department's Strategic Command.  A few quotes from the study will suffice: <blockquote> "to be most effective, deterrence must create fear in the mind of the adversary -- fear that he will not achieve his objectives, fear that his losses and pain will far outweigh any potential gains, fear that he will be punished. It should ultimately create the fear of extinction -- extinction of either the adversary's leaders themselves or their national independence, or both." (from p. 6 Section B of the report.) </blockquote><blockquote>"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers. 'This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries." (from p. 7 Section C of the report.) </blockquote><blockquote>"We should have available the full range of responses-conventional weapons, special operations forces, and nuclear weapons-so that we can decide which to use based on the circumstances. -- Just as nuclear weapons are our most potent tool of deterrence, nevertheless they are blunt weapons of destruction and thus are likely always to be our weapons of last resort. Although we are not likely to use them in less than matters of the greatest national importance, or in less than extreme circumstances, nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict in which the US is engaged. Thus, deterrence through the threat of use of nuclear weapons will continue to be our top military strategy." (from the bottom of p.7 also Section C of the report.) </blockquote>