Right Web

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

“Escalation Dominance”

The George W. Bush administration recently concluded that the increase in rocket attacks on coalition targets by Shiite forces over...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The George W. Bush administration recently concluded that the increase in rocket attacks on coalition targets by Shiite forces over the summer was a deliberate move by Iran to escalate the war in order to put pressure on the United States to accept Iranian influence in Iraq, according to one senior U.S. government official.

The reported conclusions reached by administration officials suggest that the advocates of war with Iran, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, have won at least one phase of the policy battle within the administration.

The official, who spoke to the Inter Press Service on the understanding that there would be no identification other than "senior government official," said the increased attacks represent "not just some new kinds of weapons but a new dynamic" in the conflict with Iran over Iraq.

The official said the attacks had a "very specific strategic purpose," which was "at a minimum to push the United States to accept certain Iranian desiderata"—apparently referring to Iranian negotiating aims.

The official did not specify what the administration believed those aims to be. But it seems likely that the new conclusion refers to a long-established Iranian desire to have the United States recognize its legitimate geopolitical and religious interests in Iraq.

The Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, was quite explicit in his May 28 meeting with U.S. Amb. Ryan Crocker that Iran wanted Washington to accept that Iraq is Iran’s "backyard," according to a report on the Iranian Baztab news website in June. Iran’s secret negotiating proposal to the Bush administration in May 2003 included a similar demand for "respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbal."

The Bush administration now believes Iran’s "larger strategic aim" in allegedly providing modern weapons like 240-mm rockets to Shiite militias targeting U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq is "to attempt to establish escalation dominance in Iraq and strategic dominance outside," according to the official.

The official said: "Escalation dominance means you can control the pace of escalation." That term has always been used in the past to refer to the ability of the United States to threaten another state with overwhelming retaliation in order to deter it from responding to U.S. force.

The official defined "strategic dominance" as meaning that "you are perceived as the dominant center in the region."

The Bush administration has never used the term "strategic dominance" in any public statement on Iran. According to a concept of regional "dominance" defined by perceptions—which would mean the perceptions of Sunni Arab states that are opposed to any Shiite influence in the region—Iran could be seen as already having "strategic dominance" in the region.

The reported conclusion that the increased attacks by Shiite forces represent an effort to achieve such dominance could be the basis for a new argument that only by reducing Iranian influence in Iraq through U.S. military action can the United States avert Iranian "strategic dominance" in the region. This implies that destroying what is perceived to be the political-military bases of Iranian influence in Iraq has become the key U.S. war aim.

The conclusion that the Shiite militias’ rocket attacks on coalition targets represent a bid to "control the pace of escalation" could be interpreted as expressing a concern that the United States lacks the military capacity to suppress those forces. That raises the question of whether the advocates of war against Iran have introduced the concept of "escalation dominance" as a way of supporting their favorite option—attacking targets inside Iran.

Further evidence that the administration has taken a step closer to geographic escalation of the war came in a September 10 interview by Brit Hume of Fox News with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Hume, who appeared to have been tipped off to ask about the option of broadening the war into Iran, asked Petraeus whether the "rules of engagement" allowed him to "do what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?"

Pressed by Hume, Petraeus said, "When I have concerns about something beyond [the border], I take them to my boss … and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation."

Joe Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said if the report of the administration’s conclusions about Iranian aims is true, "it is a disturbing sign that the hardliners have regained the preeminent policymaking position."

The use of the term "escalation dominance" in the Iraq context—suggesting that Iran is responsible for the conflict—is "wildly inappropriate," Cirincione observed. He said the reported conclusions sound like the viewpoint of a "group of people inside the administration who view Iran as Nazi Germany" and who are "constantly exaggerating" the threat from Iran.

The view that Iraq has become a U.S.-Iranian "proxy war," with Iran pulling the strings in the Shiite camp outside the government, was apparently rejected by the U.S. intelligence community in its National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq issued last February. The brief summary released to the public stated: "Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects of stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics."

Gareth Porter, a writer for the Inter Press Service, is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

Citations

Gareth Porter, "Escalation Dominance," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, September 28, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share