The coming uncertain war against Iran
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 24, 2008, 00:50
When Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon was chosen to
replace General John Abizaid as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March
2007, many analysts didn't shy from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion:
the Bush administration was preparing for war with Iran and had selected the
most suitable man for this job. Almost exactly a year later, as Fallon abruptly
resigned over a controversial interview with Esquire magazine, we are left with
a less certain analysis.
Fallon was the first man from the US Navy to head CENTCOM.
With the US Army fighting two difficult and lengthy wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and considering the highly exaggerated Iranian threat, a war with
Iran was apparently inevitable, albeit one that had to be conducted
differently. Echoing the year-old speculation, Arnaud de Borchgrave of UPI
wrote on 14 March 2007 that an attack against Iran "would fall on the US
Navy's battle carrier groups and its cruise missiles and Air Force B-2 bombers
based in Diego Garcia".
Fallon is a man of immense experience, having served equally
high-profile positions in the past (he was commander of US Pacific Command from
February 2005 to March 2007). The Bush administration probably saw him further
as a conformist, in contrast to his predecessor Abizaid who promoted a
diplomatic rather than military approach and who went as far as suggesting that
the US might have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Fallon's recent resignation may have seemed abrupt to many,
but it was a well-orchestrated move. His interview in Esquire depicted him as
highly critical of the Bush administration's policy on Iran; the magazine
described him as the only thing standing between the administration and their
newest war plan. Further, his resignation and "Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates's handling of [it] is the greatest and most public break in the Bush
team's handling of preparations for war against Iran that we are ever likely to
see," wrote respected commentators and former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy
Christison on 12 March. "Gates has in fact publicly associated himself
with the resignation by saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and
Gates said he had accepted the resignation without telling Bush first."
Fallon's resignation represents a bittersweet moment. On the
one hand, it's an indication of the continued fading enthusiasm for the
militant culture espoused by the neoconservatives. On the other, it's an ominous
sign of the Bush administration's probable intentions during the last year of
the president's term. Sixty-three-year-old Admiral Fallon would not have
embarked on such a momentous decision after decades of service were it not for
the fact that he knew a war was looming, and -- having considered the historic
implications for such a war -- chose not to pull the trigger.
Unlike the political atmosphere in the US prior to the Iraq
war -- shaped by fear, manipulation and demonisation -- the US political environment
is now much more accustomed to war opposition, which is largely encouraged and
validated by the fact that leading army brass are themselves speaking out with
increasing resolve. Indeed pressure and resistance are mounting on all sides;
those rooting for another war are meeting stiff resistance by those who can
foresee its disastrous repercussions.
The push and pull in the coming months will probably
determine the timing and level of US military adventure against Iran, or even
whether such an adventure will be able to actualise (one cannot discount the
possibility that as a token for Israel, the US might provide a middle way
solution by intervening in Lebanon, alongside Israel, to destroy Hizbullah.
Many options are on the table, and another Bush-infused crisis is still very
In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation
might be viewed as a positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked
in favour of the war party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in optimism.
Prior signs have indicated a serious rift among those who once believed that
war is the answer to every conflict. Yet that didn't necessary hamper the war
Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate -- an
assessment composed by all American intelligence agencies -- concluded that
Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and that any such programme
remained frozen. Meanwhile the "bomb-first-ask-questions-later" crowd
suggested that such an assessment is pure nonsense. Presumptive Republican
presidential candidate Senator John McCain has since then sung the tune of
"bomb Iran" -- literally -- and Israel's friends continue to speak of
an "existential" threat Israel faces due to Iran's "weapons"
-- never mind that Israel is itself a formidable nuclear power.
According to Borchgrave, "McCain's close friend Senator
Joe Lieberman . . . invoking clandestine Iranian explosives smuggled into Iraq,
has called for retaliatory military action against Tehran. He and many others
warn that Israel faces an existential crisis. One Iranian nuclear-tipped
missile on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv could destroy Israel, they argue."
In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no
justification for war, neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the
Middle East. They have promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many
years and will likely continue doing so, until enough Americans push hard
enough to restack their government's priorities.
An attack on Iran doesn't seem as certain as the war against
Iraq always did. Public pressure, combined with courageous stances taken by
high officials, could create the tidal wave needed to reverse seemingly
determined war efforts. Americans can either allow those who continue to speak of
"existential threats" and wars of a hundred years to determine and
undermine the future of their country, and subsequently world security, or they
can reclaim America, tend to its needy and ailing economy, and make up for the
many sins committed in their name and in the name of freedom and democracy.Ramzy
Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has
been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book
Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People�s
Press, London). Read more about him on his website: ramzybaroud.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor