Posted on 01/16/2007 10:53:33 AM PST by TexKat
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- Two years ago, then-private citizen Robert Gates recommended the United States engage diplomatically with Iran.
That diplomatic effort was also a critical part of the Iraq Study Group's findings released in December, a group Gates was part of until he was nominated to become U.S. defense secretary.
The White House swiftly rejected the possibility of engagement with Iran about its meddling in Iraq until Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium, a key component to a nuclear warhead.
Since becoming defense secretary, Gates says he has changed his mind about diplomatic engagement with Iran.
"I co-chaired a council on foreign relations study on the United States relations with Iran in 2004 ...and our conclusion at that time was that it would be useful for the United States to engage with Iran," he told reporters in Brussels Monday. "It appeared to be promising because the Iranians clearly were concerned by the presence of American troops on both their eastern and western borders and there was some evidence they were actually doing some things to be helpful inside Iraq. None of those conditions apply any longer.
"The Iranians clearly believe that we're tied down in Iraq; that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," he said. "My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems, then there might be opportunities for engagement."
Gates denied that his recent decision to deploy Patriot missiles and a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf was meant as a threat to Iran. He said it was a "reaffirmation" of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States "and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, second right, speaks during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, right, at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan on Tuesday Jan. 16, 2007. Gates told Afghanistan's defense minister Gen. Abdul Raheem Wardak Tuesday the United States will not cut-and-run from its Afghan mission, an official said. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Tue Jan 16, 8:02 AM ET
BRUSSELS, Belgium - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that new U.S. military moves in the Persian Gulf were prompted in part by signals from Iran that it sees the United States as vulnerable in Iraq.
"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," Gates told reporters at NATO headquarters before flying to Kabul to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and to visit U.S. soldiers and commanders.
It was Gates' first trip to Afghanistan since he took over for Donald H. Rumsfeld last month; he had said several times recently that he is worried that U.S. gains in stabilizing Afghanistan could be in jeopardy as the radical Taliban movement makes a comeback in some parts of the country, particularly the south.
In Brussels, Gates indicated that Iran's perception of U.S. vulnerability was part of the reason the Pentagon decided last week to send a second aircraft carrier battle group and a Patriot anti-missile battalion to the Gulf area. Patriots defend against shorter-range missiles of the type that Iran could use to target U.S. forces in the area. The Pentagon has not said exactly where the Patriots will be based.
The second aircraft carrier gives the U.S. more flexibility and serves as a reminder of U.S. firepower.
Laying out his concerns about Iran, Gates cited Iranian support for the radical Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. He also asserted that the Iranians "are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point." Other U.S. officials have accused Iran of providing sophisticated bomb-making materials to insurgent groups in Iraq.
Gates said that as recently as 2004 the Iranians were "actually doing some things to be helpful" in Iraq, at a time when they felt concern at the presence of U.S. troops on their western and eastern borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that point he felt diplomatic dialogue would be useful.
"None of those conditions apply any longer," Gates said, responding to reporters' questions about the reasoning behind the Pentagon's decision announced last week to dispatch a second aircraft carrier battle group and a Patriot missile battalion to the Gulf area. Neither move seemed directly to Iraq.
"And so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects," Gates said, mentioning their refusal thus far to accept repeated international calls to stop elements of their nuclear program.
"My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there might be opportunities for engagement," he added.
Gates said there was nothing surprising at the U.S. decision to send a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf.
"We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future," he said.
Gates' comment about Iran perceiving the U.S. military as bogged down in Iraq appeared to reflect a concern felt by many in the Pentagon in connection with deepening U.S. involvement in Iraq. U.S. officials want to knock down any speculation that the burdens of war in Iraq might present an opportunity for adventurism by U.S. adversaries elsewhere in the world, including Iran and North Korea.
Iran's increasing assertiveness is a cause for concern among many Gulf nations ruled by Sunni Arabs, including Saudi Arabia. They worry that U.S. failure in Iraq would further embolden the Iranians, whose links to Shiite extremists in the region are seen as a threat to U.S.-allied Gulf nations.
Gates has indicated he would like the Saudis and other Gulf nations to do more, particularly with economic assistance, to help stabilize Iraq.
During talks in London on Sunday, top British government officials told him they plan on reducing their contingent of 7,000 soldiers in southern Iraq this year. During his news conference in Brussels on Monday, Gates gave no indication that he opposed that move, saying the security situation in the south is different than in Baghdad, where the United States is building up forces to quell sectarian violence.
Okay, I wasn't thrilled about Gates as SOD, but I'm giving him a chance and so far I like what I see. I'm guessing when he took the job he gained access to information that changed his mind about the situation. At least I hope so.
Report: Iran eyeing southern Iraq's oil
BASRA, Iraq, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- British military intelligence officials are concerned Iran is building its influence in the southern oil-rich Iraqi city of Basra, The Telegraph said Tuesday.
"We know some extreme elements in Basra are being given support and succor from Iran and get weaponry, money and (improvised explosive device) technology in order to try to destabilize this part of the country," said Lt. Col. Justin Maciejewski, commanding officer of Britain's 1,200-strong Royal Green Jacket battle group.
British troops are scheduled to turn over security of the Shiite-dominated city to local authorities in May after four years of occupation, and commanders are concerned a showdown between the Baghdad-controlled Iraqi army and Iranian-backed Basra militias will occur.
Baghdad is not unaware of the situation, as Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi recently pointed out in a speech in London, where he accused Iran of meddling.
"We have plenty of evidence that Iran is becoming, unfortunately, the main player in Iraq," Hasemi said. "They do have a deep influence on everything in Iraq. Wherever you go in Iraq, you see their fingerprints on everything."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20070116-125727-3164r
Gates takes orders from the big boss. No talks.
If anyone attacks Iran, it won't be the US not with the RATS in control of Congress and given that the pubs are wienees.
Agreed. Once you get to look at what the President gets to see, then the picture looks much different. He's not doing too bad for an "academic boy!"
Which is why I hold the Democrats in such high contempt. If they opposed the war because they didn't have all the information, that would be one thing. But they've been briefed by the President and the DOD, the know the stakes, and yet they continue to put partisan politics before the good of the country.
The President doesn't need the Congress to attack Iran. He has the power to order attacks anytime he wants.
His realization probably came in the form of a "no" from GWB. LOL
I miss Rummy, but I hope Gates does a good job.
I was first afraid that Gates will not be tough on the terrorists, I am glad that my fears have not be correct. Gates is showing himself to be a fine secretary of defense in time of the most important war we are fighting since WW II.
That is not what Pat Buchanan and I forget the other guy said on Hardball yesterday. They said that the US would strike in Iran (significant or not) before this year is out.
I guess they have their own little crystal balls!
I hope that the President told him the "NO" in the Texas style :) Anyway I am glad that he is totally on board with the President.
Let's hope Patty is correct for once in his life.
With a cowboy boot in the rear end. ;o)
Tehran Times
Opinion Column, Jan. 17, By Hassan Hanizadeh
Regional media’s info ops against Iran
TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (MNA) -- Arab countries’ media outlets have begun a massive coordinated propaganda campaign against Iran.
This propaganda orchestra, which is seemingly being conducted by a maestro, seeks two goals. First, it aims to exaggerate the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Secondly, it seeks to create division between Shias and Sunnis in order to isolate the Shias.
For some time now, articles have appeared in the Arab press trying to convince the world that Iran’s civilian nuclear activities are a threat to world peace and global security and that Tehran has been violating international law.
Most of the writers of these articles used to praise Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and blamed Iran for the regional crisis.
After the fall of Saddam, current Iraqi officials and former opponents of the dictator revealed that Saddam had spent five billion dollars per year during the war to pay such writers.
Former Iraqi information minister Latif Nasif Jasem has acknowledged that after the Defense Ministry, his ministry had the largest budget, which was used to hire Arab writers, and that this funding came from Persian Gulf littoral states’ generous financial assistance.
Saddam’s ouster in 2003 revived the hope that Arab media outlets would halt their divisive approaches and make efforts to promote Islamic and regional convergence, but, to the contrary, they have now launched a new media campaign against Iran.
Although it is obvious that terrorists with ethnic and sectarian biases are the main cause of insecurity in Iraq, the Arab media paint a different picture in their analyses and news reports.
They are attempting to give the impression that Iraq’s Shias are culturally and religiously dependent on Iran, and they describe Hezbollah as Iran’s agent in Lebanon.
These measures are being taken with the aim of diminishing the great victory of Hezbollah in the eyes of the Arab world because this Islamic resistance group’s popularity soared among Arabs after its 34-day war with Israel last summer.
These media outlets have focused on Hezbollah’s confrontation with the Lebanese government, the execution of Saddam, and Iran’s influence on Iraq and have alleged that Iran is attempting to create division in Lebanon and arming Iraqi Shias and that Iraq’s Shias kill Sunnis.
It is hard to find an Arab media outlet that does not talk about the so-called Iranian threat in its leading stories. It seems that a professional extra-regional media center, which is much slicker than most Arab world journalism, is pulling the strings in this propaganda campaign against Iran.
These media are trying to give the impression that the United States and its allies are on the verge of launching a nuclear war against Iran which would totally change the world.
An Arab satellite television network recently broadcast a detailed report of the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf to scare the people of the region.
Despite the fact that access is restricted to U.S. ships armed with nuclear weapons, this network claimed that its reporter had been given a tour of the vessel.
The report describes the warship as a mobile ultramodern city that can target every part of the region with its nuclear missiles.
These media outlets aim to create a tense, militarized atmosphere in the region and blame the situation on Iran’s nuclear activities.
Certain Arab media outlets, many of which are based in Western countries, have created an anti-Iran mood in the West in recent years, and the Islamic Republic can only counter these information operations by formulating a comprehensive media strategy.
http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=435752
This is rich. The arabs are responsible for the anti-Iran mood in the west? Nothing to do with a bunch of bass-akwards mullahs and a queer little president with small man's disease.
One of the reasons Pat or the other guy gave was that GW had to at least get it started, if not there was skepticism that the next president would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.