Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Disappearing Diplomacy

Amid growing speculation about prospects for U.S. military action against Iran, neoconservatives and other hawks won a...

Print Friendly

Amid growing speculation about prospects for U.S. military action against Iran, neoconservatives and other hawks won a significant—if somewhat incomplete—victory in rallying the Democratic-led Congress to its side.

In a 76-22 vote last Wednesday, senators approved a non-binding amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization bill that called for the administration of President George W. Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "a foreign terrorist organization."

Among those voting for the measure was the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 presidential election, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

At the same time, the House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously—408-6—for another measure, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would force Bush to impose sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector.

That bill, which is opposed by the Bush administration due to strong pressure from Washington’s European and Asian allies and key U.S. multinational companies, is considered likely to stall in the Senate through the remainder of this year.

But its huge margin of approval, which some observers said was boosted by last week’s controversial visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, helped demonstrate once again how responsive members of both major parties are to the so-called "Israel Lobby," which has made the sanctions bill its top legislative priority this year.

Both votes took place amid an intensifying struggle within the administration over control of Iran policy, with hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative advisers, pitted against the State Department and Pentagon chief Robert Gates and his top military brass.

The State Department, while never ruling out military action, has consistently argued for continuing diplomatic efforts to address both alleged Iranian backing for anti-U.S. Shiite militias in Iraq and Iran’s rejection of UN Security Council demands that it freeze its uranium-enrichment program.

For the past two months—since the last time the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met in Baghdad—the struggle appears to have reached an impasse.

In late July, Bush agreed in principle to a proposal by Cheney for cross-border military strikes against IRGC targets that have allegedly been involved in training and supplying Iraqi Shiite militias, according to Philip Giraldi, a former military intelligence and CIA officer, writing recently in the American Conservative.

But the Pentagon brass, which has become increasingly outspoken about the overextension of U.S. ground forces in Iraq and the uncertainty about how Iran would react, countered with a more cautious strategy of building a new military base and extending patrolling along suspected smuggling routes, according to knowledgeable sources.

Similarly, the diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad over stabilizing Iraq—originally launched last May—has not resumed since their second and last meeting in late July when Amb. Ryan Crocker publicly complained about Tehran’s alleged increase in support, via the IRGC, for Shiite militias that were attacking U.S. troops.

In testimony in Washington, DC, two weeks ago, Crocker said he "found no readiness on the Iranians’ side at all to engage seriously on these issues," while Gen. David Petraeus, Washington’s top military commander in Iraq, charged that Tehran was engaged in a "proxy war" against the United States in Iraq.

Last month, the Washington Post reported that the administration had decided in principle to designate the IRGC, which, in addition to its military role, controls a number of large businesses that could be subject to sanctions, but had yet to determine whether it would name the entire organization or only its elite unit, the Quds Force. That no announcement has yet been made is indicative of the continuing infighting around Bush.

The continuing paralysis, however, appears to have favored the hawks, who have pressed their campaign for cross-border military action against Iran in the opinion pages of such neoconservative publications as the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and the Wall Street Journal.

Their calls for action became so intense that the commander of the U.S. Central Command and Petraeus’ superior, Adm. William Fallon, who has been trying to get authorization to negotiate an "incidents at sea" agreement with Iran, complained publicly that "this constant drumbeat of conflict is … not helpful and not useful.

"It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions," he told al-Jazeera.

In fact, the first call for cross-border attacks on Iranian targets was made by the Senate’s "independent" Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who is regarded as particularly close to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

It was Lieberman and Republican Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)—the honorary co-chairs of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger (CPD)—who cosponsored the Senate amendment naming the IRGC as a terrorist group in an effort clearly designed to help tilt the internal balance within the administration.

As introduced, the amendment, which, according to several Capitol Hill sources, was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran.

Among other provisions, it called for the United States to "combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran … and its indigenous Iraqi proxies" and "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including … military instruments, in support of [that] policy."

But those paragraphs were deleted after Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia delivered a passionate speech in which he charged that the amendment "is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream" and "could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war."

In a further softening, the drafters changed one policy statement that claimed it was a "vital [U.S.] national interest" to prevent Iran from turning Shiite militias in Iraq into its proxies to saying it was a "critical national interest." The previous wording generally connotes an interest over which the United States would be prepared to go to war.

Still, the fact that the amendment was approved by a significant margin—and with the support of key Democrats, including Clinton and Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada—is certain to be used by hawks within the administration as an indication of bipartisan support for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

 

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Disappearing Diplomacy," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, October 2, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share