Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - The words Wednesday from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were notable for their blunt pragmatism: An Israeli airstrike on Iran would be high-risk and could further destabilize the region, leading to political and economic chaos.
On Iran's western border, the U.S. military is more than five years into a war in Iraq that has taken 4,113 American lives and cost U.S. taxpayers more than $600 billion. And on Iran's eastern border, American commanders are now openly questioning whether they have lost their way in the fight against a resurgent Taliban.
Israel, the United States' closest ally in the Middle East, has refused to rule out a strike against Iranian nuclear sites, and this week's New Yorker magazine reported that the U.S. has stepped up its covert operations inside Iran.
While President George W. Bush repeated Wednesday that a military strike remains an option, Mullen's words of caution underscored the Pentagon's belief that a move against Iran-by the U.S. or one of its allies-would have an undeniable effect on the ongoing U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," Mullen acknowledged during a Pentagon news conference. He added moments later, "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable."
The White House, Israel and Western powers say Iran continues to work toward producing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is intended only for generating electricity. This week, Iran's foreign minister struck a conciliatory tone when speaking to reporters about the possibility of Tehran agreeing to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
Deaths in Afghanistan up
Mullen's comments come in the wake of the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in the 7-year-old war, with 27 American service members killed in June. About 32,000 U.S. troops are serving in Afghanistan, compared with 144,000 in Iraq.
Mullen said the possibility of sending more U.S. forces to Afghanistan hinges on the security situation improving in Iraq. Only then, he said, could a stretched U.S. military shift more troops to Afghanistan.
"We're on an increasingly positive path in Iraq in lots of dimensions," Mullen said. "And so I'm hopeful toward the end of this year, opportunities like that would be created."
A potential airstrike against Iran is further complicated by a rapidly changing political scene in Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran. The Bush administration has less than seven months remaining in office, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is embroiled in a bribery scandal and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lost clout among Iran's influential clerics.
There also has been much hand-wringing among Sunni Arab leaders about Iran's influence over a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. And the U.S. military has charged that Iran is responsible for arming Shiite militias that have killed hundreds of U.S. service members in Iraq.
An Israeli airstrike on its nuclear reactor sites might not be as damaging for Iran as it would be to the United States and Israel, said Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at Tufts University.
"The upside could be a political bonanza for Iran," Nasr said. "Just as Hezbollah became so popular [in the aftermath of the war between Hezbollah and Israel in the summer of 2006], Iran could gain credibility in the Arab street."
No surprise for Israel
The ratcheting up of tensions between Iran and Israel echoes Israel's 1981 bombing of an Iraqi plant near Baghdad that was designed to make nuclear weapons. But in this standoff, Israel does not have the element of surprise, and some military experts said that Israel's potential desire to launch an airstrike is muddied by the U.S. presence in Iraq.
P.J. Crowley, a retired Air Force colonel who was a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for national security affairs, said Israel presumably would have to inform the U.S. military that it would be flying in airspace that is largely American-controlled.
"From a strategic standpoint, it's hard to see what you gain [from an airstrike] and easy to see what harm you could do to both Israel and U.S. interests," Crowley said.
In his comments Wednesday, Mullen appeared to veer away from the administration's stated policy of refusing direct talks when he said there needs to better dialogue on the issue.
"They remain a destabilizing factor in the region," Mullen said. "But I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level."
In a separate development, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, warned Iran on Wednesday that the U.S. would take action if Tehran tried to cut the sea lane through the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point in the flow of much of the world's oil supply. Cosgriff's comments were in response to Iranian officials' threats against Hormuz if there is a Western attack on Iran.
When asked about the threat by Iran to disrupt oil shipments at a White House news conference Wednesday, Bush reiterated that military strikes remain an option but one he preferred not to take.
© Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
21 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Braffit,
The oil will still be there after the 'glazing over' process is complete. Special teams will build the pipelines. The pipelines will be secure because no one without very expensive
protective gear will be able to enter the pipeline right of way. Those who profit will still be living in Washington and other 'safe' places.
Dear Admiral Michal Mullen,
You and I would not see eye to eye on many things. By thank you for trying to talk sense to the Bush administration. I hope it pays off.
My great fear is :-
* If the US strikes, what happens after the Iranians retaliate by sinking US ships in the strait of Homuz?
* If Isreal strikes, what happens when the Iranians retaliate by sending a few missiles to Telaviv?
In either case, I just dont see the possibility of a nuclear armed country losing to one that is not nuclear armed, which is another way of saying, that there will be a one way nuclear war. What is really going to happen is that a country that has never attacked any country for 300 years, nor threatened to attack any country will be obliterated.
It seems to be the case that any country like Iran which is NOT nuclear armed, is going to be continually bullied up until the point where it can aquire nuclear arms to defend itself.
Whether Israel or the U.S. does the actual strike, Iran knows it is by order of the Americans.
Iran has *many* options for revenge; it will depend somewhat on how many innocent civilians are murdered. Iran is not that interested in the monkey's paw: they will take revenge on the monkey, mainly.
Israel might get a few rockets just to prove a point, but the real targets will be Abqaiq, the Strait of Hormuz, and all oiltankers in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea. Constant fear, constant high insurance.
Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq facility on the coast processes about 5-7 million barrels a day. Of this production, 93% is for export, so it is loaded directly into ocean-going tankers. Not only will it be destroyed, but radiological dispersion at the site will delay reconstruction perhaps for a decade.
The Persian Gulf will be a very high risk shipping lane for a long time: the western mountains of Iran will be used for destroying shipping in fast, hit/run operations for years.
Some U.S. warships will be destroyed after they attack Iran, just to embarrass the 'SuperPower'. But the main revenge is economic: $450 oil will destroy GM and Ford within 1 year, and the spread out, suburban economy of the U.S. will be damaged beyond repair. The U.S. needs 12.5 million barrels oil/day to be imported: their Strategic Petroleum Reserve will last less than 3 months. Then you will know pain. Then you will know fear. Then you will know hunger.
It will be the birth pains of a new world order.
The 'West' is basically the U.S., England, France, Italy, Germany and Israel. Japan will flip once the situation plays out. Most of the EU needs Russia in the winter: the U.S. will have perhaps England and Israel, maybe Guatemala, in its corner.
Iran has powerful friends, and will be rewarded in a new global economic order. They endured 1 million dead in a long war with Iraq; they will not hesitate to face much hardship to create a new, more just planet. The last King of the Jungle must be tamed.
The US military may be sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but it doesn't mean they do it. Most of them think it consists of one clause: The President is the Commander in Chief, and that absolves us of any criminal responsibility so long as we obey his orders. Other clauses in the US Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Uniform Code of Miltary Justice (which forbids obeying illegal orders), do not apply as far as they are concerned.
Adm. Mullen was on Guatanamo Bay extolling the virtue of closing GITMO in January, a cbs4 from orlando Interview a friend sent me in January, where again in the last paragraph he agains extolls virtues, this time on another part of the shoreline where he gazes almost with adolescent admiration for, "the new 'Detainee Center', which holds a minimum of 10,000." I have posted an html link a gazillion times for that article, apparently no one has used it or you'd stop acting as if he were Fallon, if 'ya gotta' choose, wherein actually lies what normally lies in this Executive Branch.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may well step down soon so that he can spend more time with his family.
beersnob: nice idea, except they'd arrest folks like Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich, and let people (I use the term loosely) like Joe Lieberman and Saxby Chambliss go free.
Beersnob...are you nuckin' futs? A military coup of Amerikkka would take us from the frying pan, into the fire. Bush & Co. only kill indirectly. The military would have no problem killing us directly. Anyone who thinks we need a military coup here is either crazy or stupid. Are you crazy or just plain stupid?
Listen to me very carefully. Please don't put your responsibility off on the military. If there is to be a revolution in this country, get up off of your fat, exurbanite asses and do it yourselves. Otherwise, we're all screwed.
Just what would happen if they discovered substantial oil deposits in Afghanistan...
Scary notion beer snob, but maybe necessary.
I've said it before: Military Coup. The politicians/leaders/lawmakers are all owned by someone, but the military (well, some of THEM may be owned too, but) are a volunteer citizen force sworn to uphold the Constitution. To arrest the president wouldn't even be treason; it's arguably their duty. Congress needs to be held accountable for their failure to impeach him as well.
CNN does not consider this news. Do a Google News search on "Mike Mullen" and you get this story predominatly in the international press. Go to CNN home page, and search for Mullen - nothing.
So... why would CNN be interested in some jerk JCS Chairman talking about anti-war? Obviously, that would be un-American.
The Admiral could have pointed out that any nation would consider an Israeli attack to be an act of war and the resulting destabilization in the region could spiral out of control.
While all the focus is on preventing oil rich and muslim Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, oil poor muslim Pakistan already has nuclear weapons just for the taking by a people who would be enraged by an attack.
While a nuclear attack on Israel could devastating and while it might be suicidal, that fear has not stopped Israel's opponents in the past. In the convoluted world, there must still be plenty of Americans with famous names who would welcome the ultimate destruction of Israel. Radical Islamists destroying Israel would give Washington a green to crush islamic middle eastern nations and take control of their oil.
Sounds like a twisted neo-nazi twofer.
In considering an Israeli strike against Iran, it might be of interest to read the following account regarding Iran's missile response:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126660
There appears to be little doubt that the nuclear facilities at Dimona, the two oil refineries and other key infrastructure installations will suffer grave damage. While this would seem to present a formidable deterrent, it seems to be ignored in the daily Israeli propaganda campaign pushing for a strike against Iran.
Everyone should read this book:
Targeting Iran by David Barsamian, Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian, and Nahid Mozaffari.
Highly recommended to read and then share.
Spike July 3rd, 2008 1:09 pm
Until the pipelines are in place and secured permanently by American troops the murdering will continue.
BINGO!
Note also that Afghanistan is said to have large quantities of GOLD and URANIUM and has something like 330 OIL WELLS left behind by the Soviets when they were chased out by, along with the Afghan warlords, CIA financed asset Osama bin Laden and his mujahadeen fighters. The Taliban had received some 300 million dollars in U.S. support prior to 911. All the US cared about was a "stable" Afghanistan, regardless of human rights abuses of the extremist fundamentalist Taliban. (See GOLD, URANIUM, OIL WELLS above.) 911 was a wonderfully serendipitous occurrence, giving the US an opportunity to take more direct military action, thus declaring the Taliban our enemy as well as their "harbored" Osama bin Laden. Nothing is EVER as it seems when the U.S. Government is involved. OH. I almost forgot the oil pipelines and highways from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and Pakistan to ports outside the Persian Gulf. Small matter, that, I suppose. We're really there to catch Osama, who is most likely living in a CIA safe penthouse somewhere in Paris.
Nice piece of real estate to "control" there -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Lotsa oil. Pledge Allegiance To EXXON/MOBIL/BP/SHELL/TOTAL
How cute. One of the brass engages in a brief CYA maneuver before ordering the attack.
Those military professionals who have faith in the armed forces and actually care about their troops are best positioned to protest more senseless aggression. Given the lack of backbone in congress and the blackout of the media in giving room for intelligence-based dissent, we have to HOPE that the warriors recognize where their own best interests indeed do not lie!
Thanks, Adm. Allen. Enjoy your "retirement!"
Bush really does want to open a real dialogue with the Iranians.
The first requirement is that the Iranians promise not to use words of more that two syllables.
The second is that Cheney gets to hide under the table to make sure the trained monkey opens his mouth at the appropriate moments.
Third will be that all questions put forward by the Iranians have to be tabled until the corporations that bought the Congress can invent the answers that suit K Street the best.
Mr. Mullen is wasting his breath. Until the pipelines are in place and secured permanently by American troops the murdering will continue.
So?
"While President George W. Bush repeated Wednesday that a military strike remains an option..."
A military strike against another oil nation remains an option but impeachment is off the table?