Posted on 03/11/2008 5:49:37 PM PDT by maquiladora
Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?
The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon -- whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq -- signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.
Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.
Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:
1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.
2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.
3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.
4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.
5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?
6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.
This is the kind of speculation that drives up oil prices to a new record every day.
We shall see.
ping
W is more worried about legacy than Iran getting a nuke. I have it on a 80% source they already have two that they bought for reverse engineering along with NK help they could easily copy one once the materials were available. Bad news is it will be dirty, good news is it will be small in the boomer category.
Liberation day for the Iranians coming up!
We should let the people pick the anniversary date.
Have to agree. What a load of speculative bull shit. The US press is out of control.
Wow, seems Iran may be really close to making the bomb and the Prez isn’t willing to let that happen.
This is why I voted for him.
Interesting, if true.
a very stupid article. Of course the guy had to go, he’s been going out in the press badmouthing the administration. That’s the whole story. He’s a jackass.
Did your source say when they acquired them? Was it close to Sept 6?
Mere speculation by the MSM. There are probably a dozen more scenarios they could have noted.
The idea that everyone has to be in agreement at this stage is wrongheaded. If Fallon does disagree with President Bush, I’m sure he has expressed himself and the President has listened. However, in light of who may be the next Commander-In-Chief, I’m not surprised that President Bush would prefer not to leave the fate of this country in their hands and would like some action taken now.
“This is the kind of speculation that drives up oil prices to a new record every day.”
No, what drives up oil prices is our unwillingness to produce our OWN oil. As long as we continue to rely in part on middle east oil the prices will always stay high and continue to rise.
oil is a global commodity, where its produced does not have any impact on the global price.
There was a time when US News wasn’t just another lefty weekly rag.
But that was 40+ years ago.
“oil is a global commodity, where its produced does not have any impact on the global price.”
Its called supply and demand. But I guess you think that doesn’t apply to commodities.
The only people obstructing domestic oil exploration and production are jetting around, and above reproach.
90% of Americans are being pinched by the 10% green weeines pandering their elitist congress critters.
we have no oil reserves in this country that would make even the slightest dent in the price of oil. you live in a fantasy world if you think we do.
I was just thinking of the David Lawrence days today.
“we have no oil reserves in this country”
That’s what Brazil thought until they found a huge deposit off their coast. We could have huge reserves, but no one will ever know because we can’t even look to see if there are.
People like you thought Texas had no oil, until a few strong willed capitalists struck it rich.
So dont talk crap about oil reserves, if you don’t even know that we can’t legally look for oil anymore.
Why can’t we just remove Ahmanutjob like we removed Mossadegh?
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.