Follow us on social

Sy Hersh: No follow-up to explosive Nord Stream story

Sy Hersh: No follow-up to explosive Nord Stream story

Update: the longtime investigative journalist says alternative theories in NYT and German press were 'concocted' by CIA.

Analysis | QiOSK

UPDATE 3/22: In a new posting on his Substack, investigative journalist Sy Hersh contends that the CIA concocted a cover story about the source of the Nord Stream pipelines in order to discredit his own reporting, which charges the Biden Administration with the dirty deed.

He writes Wednesday about the media "black out"of his reporting (which we covered here) and more:

Two weeks ago, after a visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Washington, US and German intelligence agencies attempted to add to the blackout by feeding the New York Times and the German weekly Die Zeit false cover stories to counter the report that Biden and US operatives were responsible for the pipelines’ destruction...

...There have been no statements or written understandings made public since then by either government, but I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2. In the words of the intelligence community, the agency was “to pulse the system” in an effort to discount the claim that Biden had ordered the pipelines’ destruction.

Read more on his paid Substack here.


Don't expect a part-two to Sy Hersh's explosive expose in which he accuses the Biden Administration of plotting and carrying out the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. At least not anytime soon.

When I asked Tuesday night if he would have a follow up, the 85-year-old investigative journalist said simply, "no."

The audience at the National Press Club seemed to deflate, just a bit. He suggested it was about not further exposing his sources. "It just comes down to protecting people," he added, "that's the priority, even if it means not telling everything I know."

He seemed to tease otherwise in his post, "Crap on the Wall," on Feb. 15, in which he ruminated on the casual way the administration was dismissing his Nord Stream reporting. He concluded with this:

There may be more to learn about Joe Biden’s decision to prevent the German government from having second thoughts about the lack of cheap gas this winter.

Stay tuned. We are only on first base . . .

But the issue of his anonymous sourcing, which appears in the story as one individual, has been a point of contention since he published his 5300-word exposé on Feb. 8. He mentioned several times in his wide ranging remarks Tuesday night that he had never exposed his sources and hadn't planned to now. "I was at a restaurant the other day and someone came up to me and said, 'who were your sources?' I'm not going to say."

"Nobody is going to jail for talking to me, nobody has gone to jail for me in 50 years."

Which appears to mean that he has said all that he wants to right now on the U.S. Navy diver team that supposedly set the explosives and rigged them to go off in three places on two pipelines last September. Even when the New York Times and German press seem to be cajoling him to prove their own alternative stories wrong. Both have been pushing a loosely detailed, altogether thin theory that a group of five pro-Ukrainian rogues on a chartered yacht were responsible for the sabotage (some have suggested that a "false flag" or a cover-story is at work to deflect from Hersh's reporting, or just plainly, away from the truth).

"It's such a crazy story. It's such a bad story," he said, noting that of all the sturm und drang about his own sourcing, the NYT had based its own reporting on several unnamed U.S. intelligence officials.

"That story — I know more about that than I can say. I just can't talk about it," he told the audience. He noted a number of obvious holes and lack of detail, however, as well as the New York Times reporters' own admission that they have very little insight into what really transpired.

He did seem tempted to say more but changed the subject, something he did quite often, at one point joking that he was reticent to attend Tuesday's Committee for the Republic event (the group had given him an award just four years ago for his lifetime of investigative journalism) likely because he knew he would be pummeled with such questions. But he was nonetheless game, talking jovially for over an hour about the old days at the Times and the sycophantic Washington press corps, and then more seriously about what he called Biden's dangerous policies in Ukraine and Washington's warmongering in East Asia.

"We did stupid things then and I'm worried we are going to do something else now," he said, fast-forwarding from Vietnam to today.

"I do know that we are in a real crisis here with the leadership we have on foreign policy."


Sy Hersh (Reuters)||
Analysis | QiOSK
Russia train derailment
Top photo credit: Specialists of emergency services work at the scene, after a road bridge collapsed onto railway tracks due to an explosion in the Bryansk region, Russia, June 1, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What the giddy reaction to Ukraine's surprise attacks says about us

Europe

A little over forty years ago, while preparing for a weekly radio address, President Ronald Reagan famously cracked wise about the possibility of attacking the Soviet Union. “I have signed legislation that outlaws Russia forever,” he said. “We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan had not realized that the studio microphone was recording his joke and that technical personnel preparing for the broadcast in stations across the country were already listening. His facetious remarks were leaked. The public reaction was immediate, strong, and negative. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale admonished his election opponent for ill-considered humor, and Reagan’s polling numbers took a temporary hit.

keep readingShow less
Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?
Top photo credit: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visits the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem's Old City, April 18, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?

Washington Politics

As the Trump administration continues to try to broker a nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s president Benjamin Netanyahu has not been a willing partner in those efforts.

The two spoke Monday evening, but Israel’s government has threatened strikes on Iran that could upend a deal. When Trump bypassed Israel on his Middle East trip last month, many saw it as a snub to Netanyahu.

keep readingShow less
Boeing
Top image credit: EVERETT (WA), USA – JANUARY 30 2015: Unidentified Boeing employees continue work building its latest Boeing 777 jets at its Everett factory (First Class Photography / Shutterstock.com)

A nuclear deal with Iran could generate billions for US economy

Middle East

As the U.S. and Iran engage in fraught rounds of nuclear talks, deep distrust, past failures, and mounting pressure from opponents continue to hinder progress. Washington has reverted to its old zero-enrichment stance, a policy that, in 2010, led Iran to increase uranium enrichment from under 5% to 20%. Tehran remains equally entrenched, insisting, “No enrichment, no deal, No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

In Washington, the instinct is to tighten the screws on Tehran, make military threats credible, and explore strike options to force capitulation. Yet history shows that these coercive tactics often fail. Sanctions have not secured compliance and have proven costly to U.S. interests. Military strikes are unlikely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; instead, they risk convincing Tehran to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.