Hersh makes his share of mistakes, but this story reflects a lot reporting and spadework and it rings true. At the time of the bombing my suspicion was that the probable target was a site related to missiles rather than a reactor under construction. This report lends credence to that suspicion.
Annals of National Security: A Strike in the Dark: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker
A directly related piece.
S. Hersh on CNN.
1 comment:
I beg to differ. For one thing, Hersh cites an ABC report that the United States was considering striking the site and lent extensive aid to Israel.
The problem is that the first half of that article reports that Israel apparently had a spy inside the facility who photographed the structure showing that it was (the beginnings of) a nuclear reactor and that it had a North Korean design.
Nowhere does Hersh mention - even to dismiss it - the first half of the report.
There are other weaknesses to the report. (A report in the Telegraph noted that Al Hamed did indeed pass through the Suez Canal, contrary to what he said he learned from Lloyds.) Overall the article was an exercise in emphasizing sources that supported his thesis and de-emphasizing those that contradicted it.
Post a Comment