" />

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

Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


The Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of the right-wing advocacy community, has long pressured the United States to adopt militaristic U.S. foreign policies


David Addington, who helped author the “torture memos” and other controversial legal documents while serving as an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, left the right-wing Heritage Foundation to become VP and general counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, a business lobby.


Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


RightWeb
share