By Kenneth J. Theisen March 16, 2008
The recent resignation of Admiral William Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command (CentCom), has been a challenge for the Bush regime propaganda machine. The days after Fallon’s resignation were filled with denials from top regime officials that Fallon’s departure signals a shift in Bush regime policy toward Tehran. Actually, the Bush regime’s policy has always been removal of the Iranian regime. And as Bush, Cheney, and others inside and outside the regime have been fond of saying, “all options are on the table.”
After Fallon resigned, Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council stated, “U.S. policy toward Iran remains unchanged. The president is seeking a diplomatic solution to Iran’s refusal to comply with international demands that it suspend its nuclear enrichment.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed this view in a brief statement saying President Bush believes “a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue is possible if the world stays strong and reacts in a unified way.” It is true that the Bush regime has been waging a diplomatic assault against Iran for several years. It has repeatedly pressured the U.N. and its allies to impose sanctions against Iran. But while wielding the diplomacy weapon, it has also engaged in a propaganda offensive, and actively prepared to exercise a military option.
Barely a week goes by without some top official accusing Iran of supporting terrorism. Iran has been repeatedly accused by the Bush regime of supporting insurgents and “terrorists” in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon. Despite a National Intelligence Estimate that repudiated Bush regime charges regarding Iran’s actions in acquiring nuclear weapons, the regime continues to use the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuke in its propaganda offensive. Just this week, VP Cheney stated, “Tehran continues to develop technologies that could lead to its building an ICBM capable of striking the United States, perhaps as soon as late in the next decade. Given all that we know about the Iranian regime’s hatred of America, its vow to destroy Israel and its ongoing efforts to develop the technology that could be used for a nuclear weapon, that is a danger every one of us must take seriously.” (Gee! Nukes and missiles! I guess we better nuke Iran, right Mr. Cheney?) Cheney will undoubtedly increase such rhetoric on his current trip to the Middle East.
USING DIPLOMACY TO PROMOTE WAR
But why has the resignation of an admiral who most people had not even known until this week so activated the White House press aides? Well, Fallon recently gave an interview to Esquire magazine. The article described Fallon as “The Man Between War and Peace” and as the lone dissenting voice in the Bush administration who opposed the use of the military option against Iran.
While I am not privy to the debates within the Bush regime (the NSA will not give me access to their wiretaps.), there have been others in the administration who have publicly played down the military option. These include Secretary of War, Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both have made statements calling for diplomacy rather than direct military conflict with Iran.
When reporters asked Gates if Fallon’s resignation signaled an escalation to war with Iran, Gates stated, “As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ‘ridiculous.’ “Mullen stated, “this should not be seen as a sign, at all, towards any kind of conflict with Iran.” But war and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive choices facing the Bush regime; rather, they are just different weapons to be used against Iran. It is possible to advocate both. In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the president frequently referred to reaching a diplomatic solution. The U.S. even went to the U.N. to obtain a “peaceful settlement.” But while the diplomatic shell game proceeded, it is now clear (and to some of us it was clear then as well) that the Bush regime had already made the decision to launch war against Iraq.
Gates has used diplomacy and the threat of war in the same speech against Iran. In December 2007 he accused Iran of being a threat to the U. S. and the Middle East while arguing for increased sanctions to force Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. He then used the threat of military force when he stated, some nations “may believe our resolve has been corroded by the challenges we face at home and abroad. This would be a grave misconception.”
BUSH RE-DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY
While the Bush regime is trying to play down “war talk,” the White House this week issued another executive order declaring that the “national emergency” regarding Iran’s threat to U.S. national security is to be extended for another year. In the words of the order, “Because the actions and policies of the government of Iran continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,” the current emergency must continue. I am sure most of the readers of this article did not even know we were in a state of national emergency toward Iran.
Does Fallon’s resignation mean that the U.S. is now closer to war with Iran than at the beginning of the week? Not necessarily. But that is because the threat of war with Iran has been all too real for quite some time. What Fallon’s resignation has done is bring this very real threat to the public’s attention. That is what has upset the White House. That is why administration hacks are trying to play down “war talk.” The Bush regime has always preferred to advance its fascist agenda behind the curtain, to keep the public in the dark until it was no longer possible to hide what the rats were doing.
I think it is quite likely that Bush, Cheney and others at the top of the regime have made the decision to go to war with Iran if they are able to do so. That does not mean that war is a foregone conclusion and that it can not be stopped. Wanting to launch war and the ability to do so are not the same. But let us look at some facts to see what the likelihood of war appears to be.
CENTCOM
CentCom is in charge of the military prosecution of the war in Iraq, and it has also been actively working on contingency plans for military strikes against Iran. This is no big secret. It appears that it has also been in charge of covert operations within Iran, including obtaining target acquisition information in the event of war.
CentCom not only directs the ground forces in the Middle East, but it is responsible for the naval forces there too. The navy has enough sea power in the Middle East region to destroy the world. There have been several run-ins with the Iranians including the much hyped incident where the U.S. nuclear-armed navy claimed it was put at risk by a few Iranian speed boats recently. Given the fact that much of the ground-fighting capability of the U.S. is actively tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is certain that the navy will be front and center in any war with Iran launched by the U.S.
As mentioned earlier, Cheney has begun a trip to the Middle East. He is scheduled to visit Oman and Saudi Arabia. Oman, just across the Straight of Hormuz from Iran, is central to U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia is central to ensuring continuing oil supplies to the west and its support or at least its acquiescense in any coming war is critical as war would cut off access to Iranian oil. Before launching war against Iraq, Cheney made a similar “diplomatic trip” to the region.
The propaganda war accusing Iran of support for terrorists, of exporting sophisticated IEDs to Iraq, as well as other weapons continues unabated. Last week several military officials, including Fallon, made new charges. The U.S. and it allies also are pushing harder and harder for sanctions against Iran. When the sanctions fail, will the regime argue it went the extra mile to avoid war, but was forced to go to war by Iranian intransigence? Did we not hear that one leading up to the Iraqi invasion?
Fallon’s resignation comes just over 10 months before the Bush regime is set to leave office (if the regime does not resort to a coup of sorts). If the Bush regime is intent on war with Iran, it can not wait to the last minute to prepare and launch such a war. Was forcing him out a clearing the decks operation and a warning to others to shut their mouths and get on board with the Bush regime’s removal of the Iranian regime?
While it is not possible to predict the exact nature of the Bush regime’s moves in regard to Iran, it would be foolhardy not to recognize that war is one of the real possibilities. This war would be a catastrophe for not only the people of Iran, but people throughout the world. We can not afford to sit and wait to see what the Bush regime will do, but must actively build a movement to constrain its freedom to advance it agenda and ultimately removed the Bush regime from power. We can do this. We must do this. Tomorrow is too late.
Ken Theisen is a veteran activist of movements opposing U.S. imperialism, its wars and domination of countries throughout the world, and an advocate against domestic violence in the San Francisco Bay Area.