Posted by Damozel | I've never in my life wanted more to see a year go by quickly than this one. According to The Financial Times (via Memeorandum), "the senior brass" in the US military think "that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort."
Admiral William Fallon said that dealing with Iran is a "challenge," but that a military strike against Iran is not "in the offing." At least not currently....
"Adm Fallon did not rule out the possibility of a strike at some point." (FT)
What price, then, the Bush Administration's increasingly bellicose rhetoric? According to the article, Admiral Fallon does not find "the bellicose comments...particularly helpful."(FT) Apparently the goals of Central Command are a bit different than those of certain American hawks. Admiral Fallon: "“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”" (FT)
At The Agonist, Sean-Paul Kelley remarks:
"I imagine this is his [Fallon's] way of calling Cheney's bluff on the whole "we've got to attack Iran" line. Seriously, what are they going to do? Fire the guy? Fallon's a heavy and they'd get skewered by the press and the Congressional Democrats..."(FT)
And indeed, the author of the FT article observes, "[H]is comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action."(FT)
But Admiral Fallon also said there must be "no mistake....on the part of the Iranians about our resolve in tending to business in the region....There has got to be some combination of strength and willingness to engage. How to come up with the right combination of that is the real trick.”"(FT)
Pentagon officials have told The Financial Times that they wish to avoid even a limited strike against Iran, which they believe would be a strategic mistake. "[E]ven a limited air strike could spark a broader conflict." (FT) As the common sense of the uninformed layman would suggest, Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former Centcom commander, "said the US military was “streteched too thin” to fight a protracted war with Iran."(FT) Adm. Fallon's predecessor at CentCom says that war with Iran would be “devasting for everybody,”and that while we should try to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, it would be better to live with that outcome than to go to war.(FT) And an Iran expert at Brown University who consults for the military said, "military officers like to point out that the enemy has a vote."(FT)
Being of Quakerish disposition, I naturally oppose the notion of going to war with the Iranians to make them stop supporting the Iraqui insurgency---it seems an inherently absurd notion, like smacking a child to teach it that violence is wrong. I don't know why reading that in this particular instance, many in the military would prefer to avoid war doesn't cheer me up too. Clearly, the US is trying to reduce tension between the US and Iraq.
[T]he US military this week released nine Iranians it had been holding in Iraq. The move came after Robert Gates, defence secretary, confirmed that Tehran had told the Iraqi government it would be willing to stop sending weapons to militias in Iraq.
Speaking to the FT before the release, Adm Fallon said there had “certainly been a downturn” in roadside bomb attacks on US forces, but that the “jury is still out” on whether Iran had reduced its support for militias in Iraq.
“We need to see them do something along the lines of ‘we are serious about having a dialogue’ and then maybe we can do something,” he added. ."(FT)
Perhaps it's because I have very little faith in the patience and common sense of the Bush Administration that reading this article made me feel more apprehensive. "After all, they've been talking about Iran for months and they haven't done anything yet," my colleague Cockney Robin wrote to me recently, trying to brace me up. But my other colleague, D. Cupples, has written on the similarity between the rhetoric now and the rhetoric during the "run up" to the war in Iraq.
The Agonist raises a question that occurred to me when I first read about Gates' gesture: "Are these confidence building measures? Or do they just confirm what we already know: that Cheney and Rice are duking it out, bigtime, on the issue of Iran policy?" And that---against all expectation---Condi is prevailing?
(Hawk's Eye photo "Hawk Posing" by Scot Campbell derived from by pursuant to Creative Commons license)
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS:
NewPoll: Majority of Republicans Support Strike Against Iran
Talk of Bombing: is Iran the New Iraq?
While Burma Bleeds, the Administration's Still Shuffling Toward Iran.
GAO Says Administration Should Give Congress Accurate & Timely Info on Iraq Violence (Duh)
America's Reception of Iran's President: a Brit's View
Germany Accuses France & U.S. of Hypocrisy
The French Foreign Minister Tells the World to Prepare for War Against Iran.
Chuck Hagel on Bill Maher: This is What a Republican is Supposed to Look Like.
Is War with Iran Next and Will a Draft Follow?
U.S. Allies Worried About Bush's Move Against Iran's Military
Are we Inching Closer to War with Iran? (Updated)
Iran: Did our Media Learn Nothing from Iraq?
Journalists: Think of Iraq, Be Careful with Iran
Comments