Iran Its Part of the Larger Battle
Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:49:51 AM PDT
Any one who has been paying attention to the rhetoric coming out of the current administration regarding Iran cannot help but see their attempts to integrate Iran into a larger conflict. While it might sound to some like a conspiracy theory, the theme is clear. Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with. That dealing, knowing the history of this administration, will be via force. There is a constant saber rattling almost daily designed to heighten tension and increase the justification for going to war with Iran. The latest and most dangerous is that the war against Iran is just another part of the War Against Terror.
The current aim is to make Iran appear to be the center of the war. Iran is being portrayed as the source of training and supplies to the numerous enemies the US is making in that region of the world. Sen. McCain worked at establishing this link during the Petraeus testimony as well as his famous attempt corrected by Lieberman.
McCain:
Finally, I hope (inaudible) response, because my time has expired, we could talk a little bit more about the Iranian threat, particularly their stepped-up support of various elements that are Shiite extremists in Iraq, particularly the role they’ve played in Basra as well as the southern part of the country.
This theme was embellished and expanded in a recent interview with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen. Mullen directly linked Iran as a major problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He also used some very concern trolling language that has several possible interpretations. Mullen said
the U.S. political transition will be "extraordinarily challenging," particularly as the military is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and faces interference in both countries from Iran.
Snip...
"Iran is not going away," Mullen said. "We need to be strong and really in the deterrent mode, to not be very predictable" regarding Iran, he said in a meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Post.
(all quotes from Mullen in WaPo article Mullen Cites U.S. 'Vulnerability')
I think that the most likely intent here is to link the good war in Afghanistan to the bad war in Iraq and ultimately to Iran. Mullen is using the cover of Afghanistan to earn support for hard line chatter about Iran. I also think that this is intended to help McCain politically. The key phrase here imo is deterrence. What Obama has been talking about is more along the lines of working and negotiating a solution. McCain and hardliners use the failed idea of deterrence through shows of strength and force. He is raising the specter of instability during crisis as a point in favor of McCain who has committed to continuing the current policies.
Mullen made multiple assertions regarding the role of Iranian influence in our ongoing wars. He painted a picture designed to reveal the extent to which Iran is involved that would almost necessitate some real action against Iran. Notice the prominence of the Taliban in his commentary. Fighting the Taliban still has high support and everyone recognizes them as our enemy. Linking them to Iran legitimizes attacks on Iran.
In a wide-ranging interview, Mullen detailed how Iran continues to supply weapons, training and financing to insurgents not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. He said the Iranian involvement with Taliban fighters "mirrors what they are doing with Iraqis," although on a smaller scale.
"There's training going on, weapons which are entering," as well as technology -- assistance that is "very well connected" with the Taliban leadership, particularly in western Afghanistan, he said.
Mullen said recent unrest in the southern Iraqi city of Basra demonstrated that Iran is "very interwoven into southern Iraq in ways that had not been highlighted," adding that "they want to have a weak Iraq."
I found the last statement most troubling because I thought that the latest Basra fighting was a result of the Al Maleki government. It was a fight between Sadr and Al Makeli designed to weaken Sadr before provincial elections. It was an internal struggle having nothing to do with Iran other than the ceasefire brokered by the Iranians.
This is a continuing pattern where the top military officers who are not supposed to be political actors are being used politically. It has happened before where a high ranking officer declared that pulling out of Iraq would be a bad idea. It was used to attack Sen. Obama because the military is supposed to be non-partisan. Their statements are supposed to be made as factual assessments and yet so often then become political in nature. Gen. Petraeus is the Prime example of this. Bush is using him as a screen for war policy essentially abdicating his role as CIC to Petraeus. What people are taking as the greatest concern troll language and language that some have read as rather threatening is the combination of these three things
The nation's top military officer warned yesterday that the transition to a new American president will mark a "time of vulnerability" as the United States fights two wars, and he said military leaders are already actively preparing for the changing of the guard.
The transition is unlikely to be smooth, predicted Mullen, who assumed his position seven months ago for a two-year term. He said he hopes to offer a stabilizing influence as a military leader who will bridge two administrations.
"We will be tested. . . . I'm preparing that this country will be tested, and I have a role in that regard, certainly providing advice to whoever the new president's going to be," he said. He said his current priority is to develop military strategies for the Middle East and the globe to "tee up" for a new president.
Some have tried to make it seem as if he is planning some type of coup. I do not see that here. It is not unexpected and very prudent for the military to realize that they cannot make some long-term commitments based on the assumption that Bush policies will continue. I read statements about providing a stabilizing influence as just being available as an adviser not interim dictator.
What is noticeably absent here is any mention of Iran and their nuclear program. Any discussion about Iran and their role in the region needs to also take into consideration their nuclear ambitions. Their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be divorced and portrayed in a vacuum. Any actions we take against Iran in reprisal for their efforts in our on going wars will have an impact on the nuclear front.
The point of this diary was simply to point out the continuation of the Bush policy regarding the conflation of Iran with every other threat out there. I do not mean to imply that Iran is not a problem. It is. However, I do not see the current style of dealing with it as being at all effective. The administrations attempts to add Iran into the Afghanistan mix is even more troubling. I think that the problems we face in our ongoing wars are not the primary fault of Iran. Iran could certainly help us out if they chose to but we are the primary cause of our issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Be aware that the new tag line from the Bush people is that Iran is just another front on the War on Terror.
As always tips comments recs and contructive criticism welcome even if you disagree with what I write.
Quote and article links
http://elections.foxnews.com/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Permalink | 16 comments