In his acclaimed book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, the Washington Post’s respected military correspondent Thomas E. Ricks noted that many in the higher echelons of the U.S. military had reservations about the precipitous use of force in Iraq. He noted:
The military has been displaying similar anxiety about the prospect of a war with the Islamic Republic. In 2007, the Sunday Times reported that a “generals’ revolt” was taking place due to Vice President Dick Cheney’s belligerence against Iran. At that time Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, said there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran and put the Bush administration on the defensive when he said there wasn’t enough evidence to back up claims by U.S. intelligence that the Iranians were responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq. Pace’s tenure as JCoS proved a short one, as he was replaced after serving only two years in office. His opposition to Cheney’s rhetoric appeared to be the main reason. Even four-star Admiral William Fallon was relieved from his duties as head of U.S. Central Command in 2008 after a profile in Esquire magazine highlighted his opposition to a military strike on Iran.
The military’s anti-war push-back has continued apace. The now retired Adm. Mike Mullen recently repeated his 2008 remarks expressing serious opposition to an attack on Iran, urging engagement. The military has been particularly vocal about Israel provoking a war with Iran that it would inevitably be drawn into. Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks (now denied) that Israeli policies were endangering U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were echoed by Gen. David Petraeus. Mark Perry reported in Foreign Policy:
“Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling,” a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. “America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding.” But Petraeus wasn’t finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command — or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus’s reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region’s most troublesome conflict.
With the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq behind it, the military appears reluctant to embroil itself in a new adventure conceived by politicians in Washington. Civilians in Washington have in the past tried to overcome such barriers by appointing more pliant officers to top positions. It will therefore be worth watching whether Martin Dempsey will show the same steel in resisting Washington hawks as his predecessor did.
]]>It’s almost as though the “threat” of Iran’s growing “influence” in Iraq is being used as a reason for the US to stay even though Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta insists he’s waiting on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make the decision. Some analysts say it’s mere posturing by the Obama administration ahead of the elections to show that the president will take a tough line on Iran.
On July 5 US ambassador to Iraq James F. Jeffrey said that “forensic testing” on weapons used against Iraqi police prove “[t]here is no doubt” the weapons are Iranian. The article notes that in some cases no effort was made to remove weapons identification numbers suggesting that they came from Iran.
On July 7 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen repeated Jeffrey’s claims to reporters at a luncheon, adding that “there’s no reason … for me to believe that they’re going to stop that as our numbers come down.”
Panetta made a news media splash when he told US troops in Baghdad that the US is very concerned about “Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq…In June we lost a hell of a lot of Americans as a result of these attacks. And we cannot just simply stand back and allow this to continue to happen.”
Panetta also told the soldiers that the “reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked, and 3,000 … innocent human beings got killed because of al Qaeda.”
Writing in The Independent Patrick Cockburn argues that Panetta’s comment show
Without supplying a direct quote, Reuters reports that Panetta also stated that the US will take “unilateral action when needed to deal with the threat to American troops in Iraq from Shi’ite militias armed by Iran” (this quote is taken from the body of the article).
Further down in the same piece Reuters notes that General Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, declined to comment on what exactly unilateral action would involve, but said “the secretary was pointing to was we’ll do what’s necessary to protect ourselves and that could include a host of things … so we’ll just leave it at that.”
While all of this is happening the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the US and Iraq have “quietly” restarted negotiations regarding an Iraqi purchase of what was initially priced at over 4 billion dollars worth of F-16s from Lockheed Martin. The new deal will cost billions more if Iraq decides to double the number of fighter jets purchased from18 to 36. It may be completed as a “government-to-government” transaction in the “coming months.”
The article begins by arguing that Washington hopes the purchase “will help counter Iranian influences and cement long-term ties with Baghdad after American troops pull out.” But considering increasingly warming ties between Iraq and Iran caused by the US invasion of 2003, it’s fun to ponder exactly how (or why?) the F-16s can be used to counter Iraq’s previous arch enemy, especially when its recovering air force does not have the expertise required to use or maintain them.
Finally, Iranian, Israeli and Arab representatives attended a EU hosted WMD-free zone meeting in the Middle East, but Gary Samore, President Obama’s adviser on nuclear disarmament and proliferation, was a no show!
]]>The blog, which falls under the “news and events” tab, seems to promote news and views about Iran, with a particular focus on human rights issues inside the country. There’s also an occasional perfunctory right-wing pro-Israel talking point – with little connection to Iran — thrown in for good measure. Entries so far are few, all written by someone named “Emily.”
One post in particular caught my eye: an item warning of an Iranian ‘electro-magnetic pulse’ or EMP attack on the U.S.
This one small blog post is a shining example of what independent journalist Max Blumenthal wrote about in his latest piece for Tom Dispatch: the recent uptick in Islamophobia is not some spontaneous eruption, but the “fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era.”
Following up on Blumenthal’s post, Matt Duss at the Wonk Room notes a Washington Post story on Islamophobic actors giving lectures to law enforcement. One of the totally expected cast of characters is Frank Gaffney, the head of the rightist Center for Security Policy (and, as Duss notes, Obama truther, birther, and other Obama-Muslim wacky conspiracy-theorist).
Gaffney, of course, was recently named to Clarion’s advisory board.
I tried to contact “Emily” to ask her some questions, but Alex Traiman — director of “Iranium” as well as Clarion’s Associate Director and media handler — apologized that he couldn’t furnish an e-mail contact because he was “really pretty busy.”
What’s most troubling about the fear-mongering inherent in “Emily”‘s posting is the many issues it conflates, especially with regard to the author’s characterization of comments made over the weekend by Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Just before some scare-mongering about an EMP attack, Clarion blogger “Emily” sums up Mullen’s comments in the Persian Gulf region like this:
The United States announced over the weekend that it is “very ready” to counter Iran should the regime try to start a war.
Enter the “looming” threat of an Iranian EMP weapon:
But what if Iran attacks with an EMP and renders all of America’s society and infrastructure out of commission? Then how ready will we be? Maybe we should have more of a plan.
That there is the entirety of the post. Leave aside the staggering absence of depth (the hollow recommendation for “more of a plan”), the short piece is based on innuendo designed to stoke fears of a threat-that-isn’t.
An Iranian attack against U.S. soil was not what Mullen was talking about in Bahrain. A quick click on the link to a BBC article provided by “Emily” or me readily proves this. The headline unequivocally states as much (“…Mullen Reassures Gulf States on Iran”) as do Mullen’s quotes in the body of the BBC story (my emphasis):
The US was “very ready” to meet any challenge from Iran, he said. “There are real threats to peace and stability here, and we’ve made no secrets of our concerns about Iran.”
Does it sound like Mullen should have then espoused that the United States, in addition to already stated “concerns about Iran,” develop policy to address a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory?
So this is exactly the EMP ruse.
Think Progress analyst Matt Duss made light of the obsession with EMP among advocates of far right foreign policy positions:
As a practical matter… it’s probably worth pointing out here that the likelihood of Iran, or anyone, actually pulling off such an attack is roughly the same as Iran building an enormous, space-bound vacuum cleaner and sucking up all of America’s oxygen. But Gaffney and other EMP threat promoters like Newt Gingrich are betting that most Americans aren’t going to invest the amount of time it would require to learn this.
Although Clarion thus far isn’t providing a “plan” to counter the EMP threat, many EMP fear-mongerers have: Missile defense systems. In a piece on an EMP conference, Right Web‘s Robert Farley wrote:
The central political purpose of the EMP awareness movement appears to be advancement of the cause of missile defense.
It’s no surprise, again, that Gaffney’s think tank receives much funding from the same groups — defense contractors (Boeing, General Atomics, General Dynamics, Litton, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Thiokol, and TRW) – that would profit massively from the creation of the robust systems (including space-based missile defense) that these EMP scare-mongers are pushing.
]]>Perhaps that’s why, just in time for the holidays, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) launched a scathing attack on some of the most prominent — and pro-Israel– [...]]]>
Perhaps that’s why, just in time for the holidays, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) launched a scathing attack on some of the most prominent — and pro-Israel– Jewish Senators and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Noah Silverman, RJC’s Congressional Affairs Director since 2006, may have been moved by the sight of boiling oil when he made his debut as an official RJC blogger. No sooner writ than said, Silverman’s pontifications splattered over to RJC’s e-mail list on Thursday night.
Silverman attacks Jews and Jewish organizations who have come out in support of the immediate ratification of the New START Treaty. Picking up where the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and JINSA left off, Silverman’s rails against “an unprecedented effort to ‘make START a Jewish issue‘ by pressuring Jewish communal organizations to advocate for the treaty’s ratification.”
He’s irate with the ADL and the American Council of World Jewry, both of whom objected when Senate Republicans made it known that they would use member prerogative to block ratification: “We are deeply concerned that failure to ratify the new START treaty will have national security consequences far beyond the subject of the treaty itself,” a Nov. 19 letter from the ADL to all members of the Senate asserted. ”The U.S. diplomatic strategy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons requires a U.S.-Russia relationship of trust and cooperation.”
Granted that the ADL was speaking from the perspective of its anti-Iran agenda. Nonetheless — and perhaps especially so — it’s bizarre to hear the RJC’s Silverman challenging the right of Jewish organizations to weigh in on issues other than Israel. And Silverman is livid that Senate Democrats would dare to use an argument about Israel’s security to enlist AIPAC in the effort to get START ratified.
MJ Rosenberg — citing Nathan Guttman in the Forward and Ron Kampeas at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency — suggests that
AIPAC is in agony. It desperately wants to support the US-Russia START treaty aimed at limiting nuclear warheads because the treaty would greatly advance Israel’s security.
But it is afraid of defying right-wing Republicans in the Senate. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), in particular, is telling AIPAC “don’t you dare.” His reason is simple: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has ordered Republicans to block anything the President submits to the Senate except, of course, tax cuts for millionaires. That includes START.
Tight-with-the-right Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin is Silverman’s source that the involvement of AIPAC in a non-Israel issue is shocking. Rubin writes, “An experienced Israel hand tells me, ‘Well, they of course claim there is a direct link to Israeli security. But, no, this must be very rare.’ A Capitol Hill adviser from another office says ‘I’ve never seen this done with AIPAC on a non-Israel issue.’”
But it’s not all that rare, according to Rosenberg:
AIPAC argues that it does not get involved in congressional battles that do not directly involve Israel. Of course, they do. They always have. Even when I worked at AIPAC decades ago, they put their full lobbying weight behind a then-controversial plan to establish a military base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia.
Why? Because the Republican President at the time asked them to. More recently, AIPAC made sure that its friends in Congress knew that the “right vote” for Israel was supporting both Iraq wars. (Had AIPAC not indicated its support for war, far fewer Democrats would have voted for the second Iraq war.)
Silverman frames the effort to pass START as evidence of “a panicked White House is scrambling to salvage what it can of its legislative agenda before its influence in Congress is diminished next year.” But the letter to AIPAC which so outrages Silverman was written by two longtime senators who supported arms control long before Barack Obama was elected president.
Michigan Democrat Carl Levin was first elected to the Senate in 1978, where he’s Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He’s been consistently supportive of conventional forces and basic, reliable weapons systems to protect national security. His support for START is anything but last minute. In a column in the Niles Daily Star on July 9, Levin wrote:
As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described it, New START will “make our country more secure and advance our core national security interests.” This treaty is in keeping with a long tradition of bilateral, verifiable arms control agreements with Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, and it strengthens the U.S. commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
Silverman not only ignores Mullen’s endorsement of START, he seems completely oblivious to the support expressed by Republicans for “resetting” the Treaty. They include what Jim Lobe calls are the “big guns in what remains of the Republican foreign policy Establishment, including five former secretaries of state whose service spanned the last five Republican administrations.” They include Colin Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Lawrence Eagleburger, who wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that there are “compelling reasons” for Republicans to approve ratification of START.
Bloomberg News reports that several Republican senators — among them Richard Lugar, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, Bob Bennett, John McCain, and Kyl himself, are hinting they could support the reset of START in the lame-duck Senate session if (and perhaps only if) the Senate voted to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts to cover Americans in all income groups. So it’s domestic politics, not national security, that may determine the fate of START, JINSA notwithstanding. MJ Rosenberg also thinks that “Kyl may come around and then AIPAC can too.”
Silverman, who worked for seven years as a legislative aide in Kyl’s office, also uses his first blogpost to defend Kyl against what he deems to be assaults on his former boss’s reputation. He is no doubt bristling at the thought that his former boss will give in on START out of political expediency. Although the RJC launched some of the most vicious ad hominem attack ads against Obama before the 2008 election, Silverman huffs that “Pro-Obama commentators attacked Kyl in the most demeaning and personal terms — including calling him unpatriotic.”
The “demeaning” attack on Kyl to which Silverman links is a Huffington Post rhymed rant by self-described Ranting Political Poet Jim Parry. The personal attack: a single Tweet by Washington Monthly contributor and blogger Steve Benen. And the accusation of Kyl’s being “unpatriotic”? A tweet by actress Elizabeth Banks, co-star of the frat-boy comedy film Zack and Miri Make a Porno.
Does Silverman really consider two tweets and a rant “pro-Obama news commentary”? If so, it explains alot.
Like why, after 25 years of Republican Jewish Coalition activism, there is only one single Jewish Republican to be found in the U.S. Congress — in either the upper or lower chamber.
]]>