Right Web

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

White House Sharpens Its Words

The vice president gives a hostile assessment of Iran and the president links World War III to a nuclear Iran, while the secretary of...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The vice president gives a hostile assessment of Iran and the president links World War III to a nuclear Iran, while the secretary of defense tries to temper the two with a more restrained and robust interpretation of the Iranian threat. Long before it has figured out what to do with Iraq, the White House seems intent on more military action in the Middle East.

In the harshest speech against Iran given by a top George W. Bush administration official to date, on Sunday Vice President Dick Cheney warned the Islamic Republic of "serious consequences" if it did not freeze its nuclear program and accused it of "direct involvement in the killings of Americans."

"Given the nature of Iran’s rulers, the declarations of the Iranian president, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region—including the direct involvement in the killing of Americans—our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions," Cheney warned in a major policy address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences," he added. "The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

In his nearly 30-minute speech at WINEP, an uncompromising defense of the Bush administration’s record in the Middle East, Cheney also claimed that, with Washington’s "surge" strategy working well against al-Qaida in Iraq, the "greatest strategic threat that Iraq’s Shiites face today in consolidating their rightful role in Iraq’s new democracy is the subversive activities of the Iranian regime."

Cheney’s speech comes at a moment of rising tensions between the United States and Iran. Just last week, Cheney’s boss, President George W. Bush, warned during a brief press appearance that Tehran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon—or even the expertise needed to make one—could lead to a new world war.

"I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," he told reporters, although the White House later insisted that the president was merely making a "rhetorical point" and still believed that the nuclear issue could be resolved diplomatically.

Two days later, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had resigned, replaced by the less prominent diplomat Saeed Jalili. Although the government later announced that both Larijani and Jalili would attend talks on October 23 in Rome with Javier Solana, European Union foreign affairs chief, the move was widely interpreted in Washington as a major victory for the hardline, anti-Western faction behind President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the more pragmatic elements in the regime.

While Jalili lacks experience, noted Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii, "What Jalili does have is a very close relationship with Ahmadinejad. As such, the move, if it is confirmed, reflects yet another enhancement of Ahmadinejad’s fortunes in Iranian politics."

Like Ahmadinejad, Cheney has long been seen as the leader of hardline forces within the administration, and the mere fact that his speech—which must have been cleared at the highest levels—was as belligerent as it was, especially in accusing Iran of "direct involvement in the killings of Americans," suggests that the hawks are trying to take the offensive.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made such an unequivocal accusation; indeed, Gates has tried to downplay such charges when they have been voiced by military commanders in Iraq.

The forum chosen by Cheney to deliver his speech was in many ways as significant as its timing and context. WINEP, a generally hawkish think tank, was founded some 20 years ago by Martin Indyk, then the research director of the highly influential lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many of the same donors fund WINEP and AIPAC.

AIPAC, in turn, has led a high-powered effort to persuade Congress to impose tough new sanctions against Iran and foreign companies that do business with it, and, more recently, to have Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard declared a "terrorist" organization.

As Cheney noted Sunday, his own national security adviser, John Hannah, once served as WINEP’s deputy director. While WINEP does not take specific positions on pending legislation or policies, it is generally regarded as at least sympathetic to AIPAC’s efforts and often provides the research AIPAC uses in its lobbying activities.

Cheney’s speech was remarkable on several counts, beginning with the fact that it came less than a week after Gates gave a much more restrained presentation on U.S. Middle East policy and the threat posed by Iran to an even more hawkish pro-Israel group, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

While Gates called Tehran’s government "an ambitious and fanatical theocracy," he also stressed the importance of diplomatic pressure and, in marked contrast to Cheney, dwelt much more heavily on the threats posed by al-Qaida and other Sunni "jihadist" movements.

Indeed, the rhetorical differences—including Gates’ effort to distinguish between Sunni jihadism and Iran and Cheney’s attempts to blur the two—could not be more pronounced.

Cheney’s speech was also notable for its aggressive and unapologetic defense of the Bush administration’s conduct of its war on terrorism; its insistence that the surge has turned the tide of the war in Iraq; and its repetition of neoconservative notions about the importance of reacting with "swift and dire" punishment against challenges to U.S. power in the region and the possibility that Tehran is deeply threatened by the emergence of "a strong, independent, Arab Shia [Shiite] community" in Iraq.

The vice president charged that Iran is a "growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East," and he recited a long litany of grievances against it. "This same regime that approved of hostage-taking in 1979, that attacked Saudi and Kuwaiti shipping in the 1980s, that incited suicide bombings and jihadism in the 1990s and beyond, is now the world’s most active state sponsor of terror," he declared, quoting the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, for the proposition that it is fighting a "proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

"[T]he Iranian regime also aims to keep Iraq in a state of weakness that prevents Baghdad from presenting a threat to Tehran," he added, blaming the Quds Force, an elite branch of the Revolutionary Guard, for providing "weapons, money, and training to terrorists and Islamic militant groups abroad, including Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; militants in the Balkans, the Taliban, and other anti-Afghanistan militants; and Hezbollah terrorists trying to destabilize Lebanon’s democratic government."

Cheney also strongly implied that Washington continues to seek regime change in Tehran, noting that "the irresponsible conduct of the ruling elite in Tehran is a tragedy for all Iranians" and insisting that "the spirit of freedom is stirring Iran. … America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny; the day that our two countries, as free and democratic nations, can be the closest of friends."

The topic of Iran dominated the full final third of the vice president’s WINEP speech. By contrast, he spent only two short paragraphs on Lebanon, accusing "Syria and its agents" of using "bribery and intimidation … to prevent the democratic majority in Lebanon from electing a truly independent president."

"Lebanon has the right to conduct the upcoming elections free of any foreign interference," he declared, adding, "the United States will work with Free Lebanon’s other friends and allies to preserve Lebanon’s hard-won independence, and to defeat the forces of extremism and terror that threaten not only that region, but U.S. countries [sic] across the wider region."

Perhaps most telling was Cheney’s near-dismissal of the overarching issue in the Middle East—the administration’s efforts to renew U.S.-Palestinian peace talks drew only the briefest of mentions from the vice president.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Citations

Jim Lobe, "White House Sharpens Its Words," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, October 23, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share