" />

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

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.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Ideas in Action was a rightist TV program co-produced by the George W. Bush Institute and Grace Creek Media that often featured prominent neoconservatives opining on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.


The now-defunct internet magazine Tech Central Station served as a platform for advocates of militarist U.S. foreign policies.


Once described as the “heart and soul of the military-industrial complex,” the American Security Council was an influential old-guard conservative group during the early Cold War that continues to press a conservative U.S. foreign policy vision.


An academic center of the American conservative movement, the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs has been a vigorous defender of the war on terrorism and an unequivocal supporter for Israel.


Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, has been a vocal advocate for staunchly militaristic foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Two eminent foreign policy analysts, historian Andrew Bacevich of Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies and political scientist John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, discuss fundamental problems with American foreign policy and the Obama legacy, particularly with respect to Israel-Palestine.


Print Friendly

Not only is Monica Crowley, Donald Trump’s pick to head communications for the National Security Council, the subject of a wide-ranging plagiarism scandal, she pushed fringe conspiracy theories about “Islamist infiltration in the U.S.”


Print Friendly

From a territorial perspective the Security Council resolution 2334, stating that Israel′s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law, represents an escalation in the way the international community relates to Israel’s borders and its settlements in the West Bank.


Print Friendly

On Oct. 27, 2016, the UN adopted a resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapon. Two weeks later the US elected Donald Trump, who subsequently argued that the US must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”


Print Friendly

As Trump supporters gear up for a fight to weaken or destroy the Iran nuclear deal, a new poll has found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. public opposes withdrawing from the agreement.


Print Friendly

For all of its faults, the Obama administration was acutely aware of the limits to the use of American military force, whether it was struggling with terrorist organizations or contemplating the impact the use of force would have on achieving U.S. national security objectives.


Print Friendly

A senior Israeli government minister has announced that he will introduce legislation to effectively annex Israel’s third-largest settlement, part of a plan to incrementally annex parts of the West Bank .


RightWeb
share