" />

Right Web

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

Outlandish Iran “Plot” Unleashes Calls for War

Print Friendly

The alleged Iranian plot against the Saudi U.S. ambassador was remarkable not only for its sheer strangeness, but also for the surprising fanfare with which the Obama administration disclosed it—leading some writers to question the administration’s motives. “The administration's hyping of this strange case fits [an] established pattern,” observes former CIA analyst Paul Pillar. “[I]t is operating in a reelection mode. Being in that mode means being determined to look just as tough on Iran as the next guy.” Moreover, Gareth Porter has identified several potentially false claims used by the administration to support its conclusions, and Ian Williams has discerned in the plot the hallmarks of yet another FBI-instigated terror plot.

 

Even within the administration, reports Reuters, some officials “are privately expressing disquiet that the outlandish-sounding plan has triggered U.S. calls for stiff new action against Iran.” While generally not openly disputing the facts of the case, some administration skeptics have tentatively concluded that, if anything, the plot suggests weakness and division within Iran’s security agencies, which could make further escalations unnecessary.

 

This, however, has not been the conclusion of many prominent neoconservatives and right-wing commentators, who have seized upon the development to justify explicit calls for U.S. military action against Iran.

 

In a press release reposted by Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) wrote, “It is time for the United States and our allies to make clear to Iran’s leaders that, if they continue on their current outlaw course, they will face more than just further incremental ratcheting up of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.” Rubin herself piled on, indicating her impatience with diplomatic approaches to Iran: “Sanctions—ho hum. Diplomatic responses—yawn. The Iranian regime can only be encouraged by such reticence.” She added in a post the following day that President Obama “is not willing to acknowledge that while we haven’t been at war with Iran, Iran is certainly at war with us. … Sanctions and talk. Neither has had an impact. Obama’s weakness is provocative to our enemies and demoralizing to our allies.”

 

Elsewhere, Max Boot writes at Commentary, “time and again we have failed to grasp the lesson that Iran responds positively to displays of American strength and is emboldened to aggression by evidence of American weakness.” He laments that “there is little chance we will go to war over a plot to kill a Saudi diplomat on our soil,” which he says “is likely to convince the Iranians we really are a paper tiger and will not go to war even if they are on the verge of going nuclear.”

 

AEI fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was the most explicit. “The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage,” he said. “If we don't, we are asking for it.” (Cannily, M.J. Rosenberg notes from our Right Web profile that Gerecht had already reached the same conclusion back in 2002, biding President Bush to “[compel] his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran”—well before the United States had even invaded Iraq!)

 

If the Obama administration offered up this strange allegation to boost confidence in its security policies, it’s playing a dangerous game that may force its hand later. “By offering up this kind of red meat,” notes Paul Pillar, the administration “risks enabling the meat eaters to push the administration into even more dangerous actions toward Iran.”

 

—Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is one the Senate’s more ardent supporters of militaristic U.S. foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share