DefenseDepartment officialsdiscussed the issueduring a Februarymeeting, accordingto one participant.
Is The Pentagon Trying To Manufacture A War With Iran?By Cliff Montgomery – Apr. 19th, 2007A meeting at the Pentagon in mid-February discussed a strategy to escalate U.S. pressure on Iran and create the impression that America must invade the country, according to an account by one of the participants.The Pentagon official said the discussion revolved around a plan to ratchet up U.S. rhetoric about an Iranian threat and increase a military drive toward war in a manner that was eerily reminiscent of what preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.The account was described by IPS wire service as coming from “a source outside the Pentagon who obtained it directly from the participant.”The description of this Pentagon meeting suggests a much more aggressive strategy than the Feb. 27th announcement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States would participate in direct talks with Iran, via a conference to be convened by the Iraqi government.According to the participant’s account, the Bush Administration’s decision to increase U.S. military strength in Iraq has more to do with a strategy of increased pressure on Iran than in stabilizing the Baghdad situation. The “surge” decision was described as putting the American military in a better position to respond to attacks by Shiite forces on U.S troops if there is a U.S. strike against Iran.That description matches other indicators that George W. Bush’s decision on the troop “surge” was in fact made as part of a strategy toward Iran. Immediately after Bush’s Jan. 10th speech announcing the troop “surge”, NBC‘s Tim Russert reported that Bush and his principal advisers had told a small group of journalists the United States would not sit down with Iran until America had gained “leverage”.That was the most clear indication from Bush Administration officials that they felt the United States should only negotiate with Iran after America’s self-proclaimed “war president” had altered the bargaining relationship with Tehran.In that same reporter briefing, Bush officials indicated that one of their objectives was to create a situation in which Washington would not have to “go to Syria and Iran” and “ask for anything,” according to Russert. In other words, the Bush Administration would continue to live by the neo-conservative geopolitical matra: no diplomacy for any reason, at any price.IPS speculates that Bush may feel “the troop increase would convince Iran that the United States would not have to rely on Iranian influence in Iraq” to decrease Shiite opposition to the occupation.But there has also been speculation that American vulnerability to retaliatory attacks in Iraq has somewhat restrained the Bush Administration from waging a second “pre-emptive war”, this time against Iran.Whatever the case, the briefing to reporters did show that the Bush strategy would involve increasing pressure on Iran–by “framing the debate” in now-standard terms of new military threats from Iran to U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East.Bush officials also indicated to journalists during the briefing that Iran would soon be raised as a top issue in “a very acute way,” according to Russert.Indeed, the Bush Administration soon sent an additional carrier task force into the Persian Gulf–an almost patented bit of neo-conservative sabre-rattling for this part of the world.Bush’s January speech was then followed by a well-orchestrated campaign of administration statements and intelligence “leaks” which claimed official Iranian involvement in providing armor-penetrating weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. The administration admitted in a later Baghdad briefing on the subject that this charge was based on unproven “inference” rather than actual fact.After the Bush boys failed to produce actual evidence of Iranian government involvement in exporting weapons to the Iraqi Shiites, the administration introduced a new line on the alleged Iranian menace.Vice-Admiral Patrick Walsh–who was preparing to leave his position as Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command–told reporters on Feb. 19th that the Iranian military’s exercises in the Strait of Hormuz suggests that they could use mines to close the Strait. Walsh tellingly called mines “an offensive terrorist type of weapon,” apparently without a shred of direct evidence that any Iranian official was thinking of using these normally defensive weapons to start a war with the U.S.In false rhetoric, this is known as “loaded language.” Any unproven possibility–however remote or absurd–is referred to as if it is certain fact.In fact, Iranian officials have only threatened to mine the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for a strike by the United States against Iran.”The question is not what the Americans are planning,” Walsh claimed, “but what the Iranians are planning.”This now-typical inversion of reality indicates that the Bush boys may be designing a new campaign to portray Iran’s defensive positions as an offensive threat to U.S. allies and security in the Middle East.
