U.S. Military Strike On Iran Likely, Ex-CIA Chief Says

WASHINGTON — A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Comments

[IntellectuallyHonest]

02:45 PM on 08/06/2010

War with Iran: A right-wing/AIPAC/MIC/Pentagon/CIA idea

[simplypeyton]

06:27 PM on 07/28/2010

Time to take this "story" down:"

WASHINGTON - In a July 25 story, The Associated Press reported that former CIA Director Michael Hayden told CNN's "State of the Union" that U.S. military action against Iran now "seems inexorable." A spokeswoman for Hayden responded that he made his reference to Iran's push toward acquiring a nuclear program and not to military action.

More Western media distortions.

[Hassan shoja]

06:36 AM on 07/30/2010

Any trick to train Americans to accept the idea of attacking Iran little by little.

[IntellectuallyHonest]

02:42 PM on 08/06/2010

I agree with you, Hassan. This idea that a 'strike' against Iran is probable is a move forward by the Pentagon/MIC/AIPAC chess players. However, they will probably lose in the end, not because they don't know how to play chess, but because they are better at bullying, which was the German and the Japanese style in the last century (I don't want to say they don't know how to play chess, because that will motivate them to be even more cunning and evil, but don't tell anyone I said that, okay Hassan? That will be our 007 international secret :)

[Cost of Progress]

12:51 PM on 07/28/2010

It'll be a grave mistake for the West to attack Iran as it'll galvenize a nation which currently despise the anti-nationalist and anti Irnain regime of the enelected clergy and associated genocidal goons.
Help the people help themselves - If you really mean it. An attack on Iran is an attack on ALL Iranians, AND - ANOTHER HUGE mistkae in US's foriegn policy.
Will the US ever learn?

[Hassan shoja]

06:09 PM on 07/27/2010

US and Israel should take out Iran's allies in ME, Lebanon and Syria.

This is exactly what is going to happen.

If Israel and US are able to take out Lebanon and Syria then Iran will be next.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/44-ahmadinejad-says-expects-us-to-attack-mideast-soon-fa-07

[Hassan shoja]

06:21 PM on 07/27/2010

I just want to add that I am against any attack to Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

[Quinterius]

09:00 PM on 07/27/2010

Please be careful how you word your sentences. Your first sentence says, "US and Israel should take out Iran's allies in ME, Lebanon and Syria." You obviously don't mean it. If I can be so bold, I think you meant to say that the US is planning to take out Iran's allies, Lebanon and Syria.

[Hassan shoja]

09:15 PM on 07/27/2010

I realized it once I read it.

Sorry, I will be more careful,

thanks.

[koroush1336]

03:13 PM on 07/27/2010

War is a divine blessing, a gift bestowed upon us by God. The cannon's thunder rejuvenates the soul.

Khomeini, September 1980

[Shomali]

01:40 AM on 07/28/2010

Non-sense copied from a book of fiction by Mohammad Mohaddessin a member of the MOK/MEK ter.ror cult.

[FoxIslander]

03:10 PM on 07/27/2010

Im sure Haliburton and Xe stock just went up on the news.

[koroush1336]

03:10 PM on 07/27/2010

Some argue that the Mullahs want to attack the WORLD! Believe it or not, the Mullahs do not dare to do anything to any country as long as that country has enough to return the FIRE! Khomeini thought that IRAQ would be an easy TARGET! He wanted to expand his REACTIONARY islamic rep. He didn't attack Turkey! Do you know why? Because Turkey is a NATO Member. Khomeini wanted this "ALLAH'S BELSSING-WAR". He knew better that IRAQ is not all that powerfull and has no Defense Treaty with a super power. So it could have been an easy TARGET! The rest is known to all of us.

He attacked IRAQ, despite the fact that he was for 15 years as a REFUGEE in that country. He was saying that he would keep on fighting to "THE LAST BRICK OF THE LAST HOME IN IRAN!" and his WAR SLOGAN WAS: "WAR, WAR, WAR UNTILL THE VICTORY!" At the end he said: "I HAD TO DRINK THE GABLET OF POISEN!" He ment about accepting the UN Resolution 598. The Resolution which was aimed to end the IRAN-IRAQ WAR.

Now what many IRANIANS are saying is about the fact that the Mullahs' REAL WAR IS AGAINST THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WHO HATE THE MULLAHS MORE THAN ANYONE CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE. And if these CRIMINALS get thier hands on an ATOM BOMB, they would use it against their main ENEMY, namely the people of IRAN!”

[Quinterius]

05:36 PM on 07/27/2010

Are you crazy? It was Iraq that attacked Iran, not the other way around. Obviously, you are a disaffected Iranian. But, you should not let your feelings cloud your mind. Please stop talking nonsense.

[Shomali]

01:33 AM on 07/28/2010

Iran attacked Iraq? which history book are you reading from? Are you a member of MEK?

[Quinterius]

10:16 AM on 07/27/2010

Apparently, Hayden was misquoted. See

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZfgLuKrg3QBRltJ0qQMIzgIohdQD9H6U0LO2

His spokesman said that he said Iran's "push toward acquiring a nuclear program [is inexorable] and not military action." Now, what is wrong with acquiring a nuclear program, which is perfectly peaceful. If anyone has evidence that the Iranian program is building nuclear bombs, please provide references. For 10 years we have been told that Iran will have have a nuclear bomb within six months to two years. We are still waiting.

[PadriVeum]

11:14 AM on 07/27/2010

thank you!

[Hassan shoja]

06:11 PM on 07/27/2010

West does not need evidence.

Guilty unless proven innocent, exactly like Iraq WMD case.

[Guytar]

09:25 AM on 07/27/2010

Any military attack on Iran will cause a massive increase in the global price of oil. The economic consequences around the world would be devastating. Israeli hawks and neocons threaten and bluster. But they do not dare attack Iran in 2010.

[Justtellthetruth]

10:03 AM on 07/27/2010

Another pathetic Neocon getting off on the fantasy of all out war for decades to come in the middle east. This guy is so busy whacking off to his dreams of ultra violence and world domination that he is incapable of seeing how little Iran actually threatens the US or how damaging it would be to the entire world to attack them without provocation.

[SonnyBono]

06:48 AM on 07/27/2010

Rather than identify the source of this statement as an "Ex-CIA Chief" why don't you identify him as another of the George W. Bush enablers - that band of right wing merrymen that never saw a war they didn't love because it would never be them or theirs that would actually be doing the fighting and the dying.

The headline should read "U.S. Military Strike on Iran Likely, Ex-CIA Chief and War Monger Michael Hayden who served under the recent village idiot and known war criminal George W. Bush." But sadly it won't because in war and the run-up to war, the first casualty is the truth.

[Carolab]

04:52 AM on 07/27/2010

We've already been conducting covert ops there for two years.

Still I can't believe what I'm reading.

[Hassan shoja]

01:16 AM on 07/27/2010

West adheres to same extreme interpretation of Islam as extremist terrorist wahhabis and presents it to western population that way.

These extreme views are accepted by 1% of Muslims, but used as justification to attack all Muslims.

Also there are indications that Wahhbism is manufactured by Britain 300 years ago to introduce fights between Muslims so Britain could control Muslim easily.

If we attack Suuni Muslims in Baghdad, Sunni and Wahhabis in Afghanistan and Shia Muslims in Iran, can we pull it all off?

Remember Britain had waged a much smarter war of divide and conquer and still failed.

How big of success this strategy of unite and conquer has?

[Hassan shoja]

12:58 AM on 07/27/2010

namdlogd you asked below: "do you not understand the meaning of the word jihad? "

Most people think Jihad means killing and they will get scared when they see the world is used many times in Quran.

Jihad means "effort" or "to strive".

Verse 9-24 for example has the world Jihad in it.

http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=jihad&chapter=&translator=6&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

Translation of Verse 9-24:

"Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause(way);- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious."

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=9&translator=2&mac=

With a moderate viewpoint any good actions like helping orphanages, building schools, helping poor people are Jijad, because it is striving in the way of God.

But with an extremist Wahhabi terrorist interpretation, killing others in fights will count as Jihad.

More than 99% of Muslims believe in moderate interpretation of Jihad and count any good deeds as Jihad in way of God.

Also according to moderate interpretation, offensive or Preemptive wars aren't allowed, suicide is forbidden, collateral damage is not allowed.

You see people do these things out of desperation and somebody has made them desperate, Israel?

[namdlogd]

02:47 AM on 07/27/2010

Please go down to the corner of Trinity and Wall and tell them that absolute garbage.

[Hassan shoja]

03:32 AM on 07/27/2010

You have tried to teach others what the meaning of Jihad is, thinking you know what it means.

Now the shock of the revelation to find out it does not mean what you thought it means, caused you to vomit nonsense.

[Deleberis]

11:24 PM on 07/26/2010

What has Iran DONE to the US to call for military strikes and more force? They weren't involved in 9/11. They're not funding the Taliban. ????

[blutigeroo]

11:51 PM on 07/26/2010

But, but, but they *might* one day, maybe in 10 years or in 100 years, *start* constructing nuclear weapons.

I know, it is plain ridiculous and this ex-CIA chief is being very kafkaesque.

[jeff dickey]

05:27 AM on 07/27/2010

It's not and never has been about what Iran has done or might do to the US. It's entirely about the idea of preserving Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region and US continuing illegal (Google "Symington Amendment") lock-step support for them.

[sneakurs]

10:27 PM on 07/26/2010

So let me get this right... It's ok to talk about future US military actions but recent past and present day military actions (WikiLeaks) is somehow a no-no???