WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, Pentagon officials discussed a
strategy to escalate U.S. pressure on Iran with the intention of creating
the impression that the U.S. is ready to go to war, according to an
account by one of the participants.
'BRINKMANSHIP'
A Super Hornet takes off on board the USS John C. Stennis in the Gulf of Oman off the coast of Pakistan 23 February 2007. US military commanders insist that intimidating Iran is not part of their mission in the region. (AFP/Adam Jan)
|
A meeting at the Pentagon in mid-February was said by the participant to
have revolved around a plan to ratchet up U.S. rhetoric about an Iranian
threat and make further military preparations for war in a way that would
be reminiscent of what happened prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003. The account was described by a source outside the Pentagon who
obtained it directly from the participant.
The description of Pentagon thinking suggests a strategy that is much more
aggressive than the line represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice's announcement Tuesday that the United States would participate in
direct talks with Iran in the context of a conference to be convened by
the Iraqi government.
According to the account provided by the participant, the administration's
decision last month to increase U.S. military strength in Iraq by at least
22,000 troops is related more to a strategy of increased pressure on Iran
than to stabilizing the situation in Baghdad. The troop decision was
described as putting the U.S. military in a better position to respond to
attacks by Shiite forces on U.S troops in retaliation against a possible
U.S. strike against Iran.
That description is consistent with other indications that Pres. George W.
Bush's decision on the troop "surge" was made primarily in the context of
strategy toward Iran. Immediately after Bush's Jan. 10 speech announcing
the additional troops, NBC's Tim Russert reported that Bush and his top
advisers had told a small group of journalists the United States would not
sit down with Iran until the United States had gained "leverage".
That was the most direct indication from administration officials that
they believed the United States could negotiate successfully with Iran
once the administration had altered the bargaining relationship with
Tehran.
In that same briefing for reporters, according to Russert, the officials
indicated that one of the administration objectives was to achieve a
situation in which Washington would not have to "go to Syria and Iran" and
"ask for anything". That was an indirect reference to the bargaining
leverage that Iran was believed to have derived from the widely shared
belief that the United States would need Iran's help to stabilize the
situation in Iraq.
Bush was apparently convinced that the troops increase would convince Iran
that the United States would not have to rely on Iranian influence in Iraq
to deal with Shiite opposition to the occupation.
But the troop surge decision was also linked to another aspect of the
U.S.-Iran bargaining relationship. It had been widely speculated that the
vulnerability of the United States to retaliatory attacks in Iraq added to
Iran's leverage by restraining the Bush administration from waging a
preemptive war against Iran.
The briefing before Bush's Jan. 10 speech also provided a key piece of
evidence that the Bush strategy would involve increasing pressure on Iran
by framing the issue of U.S. policy in terms of new military threats from
Iran to U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East. Russert reported
that administration officials had tipped off journalists that Iran would
soon be raised as a major issue in what Russert called "a very acute way".
The January Bush speech was followed by a carefully orchestrated campaign
of administration statements and leaks alleging official Iranian
involvement in providing armour-penetrating weapons to Shiite militias in
Iraq. The administration admitted in a briefing in Baghdad aimed at
bolstering that charge that it was based on "inference" rather than actual
evidence.
To increase the sense of heightened tension with Iran and suggest momentum
toward a military confrontation, the administration had already moved an
additional carrier task force into the Persian Gulf.
Another move in the increased pressure on Iran, according to the same
source, is that refuelling assets are now being flown into the U.S. base
complex at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. "You can't launch air strikes
against Iran without refuelling assets being there," the source observed.
High administration officials have used carefully chosen words in recent
weeks to suggest that they are planning for war against Iran even as press
leaks about as possible attack multiplied. On Feb. 15, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates said, "We are not looking for an excuse to go to war with
Iran...We are not planning a war with Iran."
Meanwhile, however, the administration maintains the position that the
option of a military strike against Iran remains as its last resort if
Iran does not agree to U.S. terms for negotiations.
After the administration failed to produce evidence of such Iranian
government involvement in exporting weapons to the Shiites in a Baghdad
press conference on Feb. 11, the administration introduced a new line on
an alleged Iranian threat.
Vice-Admiral Patrick Walsh, who is leaving his position as Commander of
U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told reporters Feb. 19 that the Iranian
military conducts exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that they
could use mines to close the Strait. Walsh called mines "an offensive
terrorist type of weapon."
Iranian officials have always placed their threats to close the Strait of
Hormuz explicitly in the context of retaliation for a strike by the United
States against Iran.
"The question is not what the Americans are planning," Walsh said, "but
what the Iranians are planning." That statement indicates that the United
States is designing a new campaign to portray Iran's military posture as
threatening to U.S. allies and security in the Middle East.
The participant's account of the Pentagon meeting did not indicate any
timetable for the sequence of steps or what the climactic move in the
campaign would be. Nor did it suggest that a decision had been made by the
White House to launch air strikes against Iran. However, the moves now
planned would increase the likelihood of war in the event that
Washington's escalatory moves fail to sway Iran's leaders.
A former assistant secretary of defense in the Bill Clinton
administration, Chas Freeman, who was also ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
calls Bush's escalation of military pressure "brinksmanship" -- a term
recalling the practice by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his Secretary
of State John Foster Dulles of threatening war against China over Korea
and the Taiwan Strait.
"By deploying forces to add credibility to the threat," Freeman told IPS,
"you increase the risk of military conflict, which is fact what is
intended."
© Copyright 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service
###
