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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.