Well, Hersh was wrong last year when he said we would be attacking Iran emminently, but he continues to bring attention to the excess of sabre-rattling over Iran.

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
...
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."

Uh oh.

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?'"

Exactly! What are these people smoking? This is like when we attacked Iraq they said they would greet us with flowers. Well, I guess since it was Iraq, they didn't have a lot of flowers. Instead they threw what they had, mainly IED's. Anyway, think about the reverse, what if the Iranians bombed the shit out of our country? Would we rise up and overthrow Bush just because the majority of us are dissatisfied with him (and a fair number of us hate him with fiery laser-beam eyes of death)? Not bloody likely.

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."

How much do you want to bet that the "one democrat" is Joe Lieberman? He's not much of a Democrat anyway, and he's probably the only one you could rely on not to leak that they're planning to attack Iran.

In a way though, this makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of loose ends that are tied up nicely with this explanation, that the administration is planning to attack Iran. For instance, why did they want to pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties to develop bunker-busters? Maybe because Iran is building facilities deep underground? Why do they continue to insist they have the right to strike countries preemptively?

It gets worse.

"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."

If Bush attacks Iran, it will be the end of him, the end of the Republicans, and quite possibly, the end of our military. We're already over-extended, and what makes you think they'd plan this one any better? Such a plan reeks of a future draft. Unless their plan is just to bomb the country to hell, and leave forever, this could an unparalleled disaster.