Right Web

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

Leveraging the Surge

Two weeks ago, Pentagon officials allegedly discussed a strategy to escalate U.S. pressure on Iran with the intention of creating the impression that Washington is ready to go to war.

One of the alleged participants said the mid-February Pentagon meeting revolved around a plan to ratchet up U.S. rhetoric about an Iranian threat and make further military preparations for war in a way that would be reminiscent of what happened prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. (The account was described by a source outside the Pentagon who obtained it directly from the participant.)

If true, the description of Pentagon thinking suggests a strategy that is much more aggressive than the line represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced last Tuesday that the United States would participate in direct talks with Iran in the context of a conference to be convened by the Iraqi government.

Skeptics believe the administration’s recent decision to "surge" U.S. military strength in Iraq by at least 22,000 troops is related more to a strategy of increased pressure on Iran than to stabilizing the situation in Baghdad. The surge decision could be seen as putting the U.S. military in a better position to respond to Shiite attacks on U.S troops in retaliation to a possible U.S. strike against Iran.

That would be consistent with other indications that President George W. Bush’s "surge" decision was made primarily in the context of an Iran strategy. Immediately after Bush’s January 10, 2007 speech announcing the additional troops, NBC’s Tim Russert reported that Bush and his top advisers had told a small group of journalists that the United States would not sit down with Iran until the United States had gained "leverage." That was the most direct indication from administration officials that they believed the United States could negotiate successfully with Iran once the administration had altered the bargaining relationship.

In that same briefing for reporters, according to Russert, officials indicated that one administration objective was to achieve a situation in which Washington would not have to "go to Syria and Iran" to "ask for anything." That was probably an indirect reference to the bargaining leverage that Iran was believed to have derived from the widely shared belief that the United States would need Iran’s help to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Bush was apparently convinced that the troop-level increase would convince Iran that the United States would not have to rely on Iranian influence in Iraq to deal with Shiite opposition to the occupation.

But the troop-surge decision was also linked to another aspect of the U.S.-Iran bargaining relationship. It was widely speculated that the vulnerability of the United States to retaliatory attacks in Iraq added to Iran’s leverage by restraining the Bush administration from waging a preemptive war against Iran.

The briefing before Bush’s January 10 speech also provided a key piece of evidence that the Bush strategy would involve increasing pressure on Iran by framing the issue of U.S. policy in terms of new military threats from Iran to U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East. Russert reported that administration officials had tipped off journalists that Iran would soon be raised as a major issue in what Russert called "a very acute way."

Bush’s January speech was followed by a carefully orchestrated campaign of administration statements and leaks alleging official Iranian involvement in providing armor-penetrating weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. The administration admitted in a briefing in Baghdad aimed at bolstering that charge that it was based on "inference" rather than actual evidence.

To increase the sense of heightened tension with Iran and suggest momentum toward a military confrontation, the administration had already moved an additional carrier task force into the Persian Gulf.

Another move in the increased pressure on Iran, according to the same source outside the Pentagon, is that refueling assets are now being flown into the U.S. base complex at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. "You can’t launch air strikes against Iran without refueling assets being there," the source observed.

Senior administration officials have used carefully chosen words in recent weeks, yet Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded quite straightforward on February 15, when he said, "We are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran … We are not planning a war with Iran." Meanwhile, however, the administration maintains the position that the option of a military strike against Iran remains as its last resort if Iran does not agree to U.S. terms for negotiations.

After the administration failed to produce evidence of Iranian government involvement in exporting weapons to the Shiites, the administration introduced a new line on an alleged Iranian threat during a Baghdad press conference on February 11.

Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, who is leaving his position as commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told reporters on February 19 that the Iranian military conducts exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that they could use mines to close the strait. Walsh called mines "an offensive terrorist type of weapon."

Iranian officials have always placed their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz explicitly in the context of retaliation for a strike by the United States against Iran.

"The question is not what the Americans are planning," Walsh said, "but what the Iranians are planning." His statement indicates that the United States is designing a new campaign to portray Iran’s military posture as threatening to U.S. allies and security in the Middle East.

It is unknown whether the White House has a plan to launch air strikes against Iran. However, the moves now planned would increase the likelihood of war in the event that Washington’s escalatory moves fail to sway Iran’s leaders.

A former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, Chas Freeman, who was also ambassador to Saudi Arabia, calls Bush’s escalation of military pressure "brinksmanship"—a term recalling the practice by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles of threatening war against China over Korea and the Taiwan Strait.

"By deploying forces to add credibility to the threat," Freeman told the Inter Press Service, "you increase the risk of military conflict, which is in fact what is intended."

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy. His latest book is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (2005).

Citations

Gareth Porter, "Leveraging the Surge," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, March 6, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The millionaire pastor of the Cornerstone Church in Texas, John Hagee argues that U.S. support for Israel will play a “a pivotal role in the second coming” of Jesus. He has also risen to new prominence during the Trump administration.


Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who served as a chief aide and speechwriter in the George W. Bush White House, is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and one of Donald Trump’s harshest critics on the right, calling him an “unhinged president.”


Robert Kagan, a cofounder of the Project for the New American Century, is a neoconservative policy pundit and historian based at the Brookings Institution.


Mira Ricardel, former weapons marketer for Boeing, is the deputy national security adviser under John Bolton. She is a well-known foreign policy hawk who has served in key positions in the administration of George W. Bush and, earlier, in the office of former Senator Robert Dole (R-KS).


Fred Fleitz left his role as chief of staff at the National Security Council under John Bolton to succeed notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney as president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

As the civilian death toll from Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen grows and the backlash against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in Khashoggi’s murder escalates, former Sen. Norm Coleman’s control of Republican Party campaign purse strings positions him as a key influencer of Republican congressional action, or inaction, in curtailing the increasingly aggressive and reckless actions of Saudi Arabia.


Increasingly, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are positioned as rivals, each with pretensions to Middle Eastern influence or even hegemony. It’s not clear whether they can continue to coexist without one or the other—or both—backing down. This has made it more difficult for the United States to maintain its ties with both countries.


What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? Next to nothing — and arguably quite a lot.


The Donald Trump administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Saudi Arabia promises to lay bare some realities about security issues and nuclear programs in that part of the world that the administration has refused to acknowledge.


Eminent U.S. foreign policy expert Stephen Walt’s new book critique’s the “liberal hegemony” grand strategy that has dominated U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.


(Lobelog)  Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told LobeLog he will remain on the board of the Gatestone Institute, a right-wing think tank that receives money from Trump megadonors Robert and Rebekah Mercer and disseminates anti-Muslim and anti-refugee conspiracy theories. Last week, LobeLog reported that Dershowitz received $120,000 from the Gatestone Institute in 2017 and…


Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


RightWeb
share