DoD Nixed Iran Attack

pizzaman Active Member

Messages:: 4,053

Likes Received:: 52

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 90

#1

i just came across this. very intresting. it seems that DOD didn't want a half ass plan any more.

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials firmly opposed Vice President Dick Cheney's proposal to strike Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps bases last summer by insisting that the administration make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former Bush administration official.

J. Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.

McClatchy newspapers reported last August that Cheney had proposed several weeks earlier "launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran," citing two officials involved in Iran policy.

According to Carpenter, who is now at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, a strongly pro-Israel think tank, Pentagon officials argued that no decision should be made about the limited airstrike on Iran without a thorough discussion of the sequence of events that would follow an Iranian retaliation against such an attack. Carpenter said the Defense Department officials insisted that the Bush administration had to make "a policy decision about how far the administration would go -- what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks."

The question of escalation posed by Defense Department officials involved not only the potential of the Mahdi Army in Iraq to attack, Carpenter said, but also possible responses across the Middle East by Hezbollah and by Iran.

Carpenter suggested that Defense Department officials were shifting the debate on a limited strike from the Iraq-based rationale, which they were not contesting, to the much bigger issue of the threat of escalation to full-scale war with Iran, knowing that it would be politically easier to thwart the proposal on that basis.

The former State Department official said the Defense Department "knew that it would be difficult to get interagency consensus on that question."

The Joint Chiefs were fully supportive of the position taken by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Cheney proposal, according to Carpenter. "It's clear that the military leadership was being very conservative on this issue," he said.

At least some Defense Department and military officials suggested that Iran had more and better options for hitting back at the United States than the United States had for hitting Iran, according to one former Bush administration insider.

Former Bush speechwriter and senior policy adviser Michael Gerson, who had left the administration in 2006, wrote a column in the Washington Post on July 20, 2007, in which he gave no hint of Cheney's proposal but referred to "options" for striking Iranian targets based on the Cheney line that Iran "smuggles in the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers."

Gerson cited two possibilities: "Engaging in hot pursuit against weapon supply lines over the Iranian border or striking explosives factories and staging areas within Iran." But the Pentagon and the military leadership were opposing such options, he reported, because of the fear that Iran has "escalation dominance" in its conflict with the United States.

That meant, according to Gerson, that "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs."

Carpenter's account of the Pentagon's position on the Cheney proposal suggests, however, that civilian and military opponents were saying that Iran's ability to escalate posed the question of whether the United States was going to go to a full-scale air war against Iran.

Pentagon civilian and military opposition to such a strategic attack on Iran had become well-known during 2007. But this is the first evidence from an insider that Cheney's proposal was perceived as a ploy to provoke Iranian retaliation that could used to justify a strategic attack on Iran.

The option of attacking nuclear sites had been raised by President Bush with the Joint Chiefs at a meeting in "the tank" at the Pentagon on Dec. 13, 2006, and had been opposed by the Joint Chiefs, according a report by Time magazine's Joe Klein last June. After he become head of the Central Command in March 2007, Adm. William Fallon also made his opposition to such a massive attack on Iran known to the White House, according to Middle East specialist Hillary Mann, who had developed close working relationships with Pentagon officials when she worked on the National Security Council staff.

It appeared in early 2007, therefore, that a strike against Iran's nuclear program and military power had been blocked by opposition from the Pentagon. Cheney's proposal for an attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps bases in June 2007, tied to the alleged Iranian role in providing both weapons -- especially the highly lethal explosively formed projectiles -- and training to Shiite militias appears to have been a strategy for getting around the firm resistance of military leaders to such an unprovoked attack.

Although the Pentagon bottled up the Cheney proposal in inter-agency discussions, Cheney had a strategic asset that he could use to try to overcome that obstacle: his alliance with Gen. David Petraeus.

And Cheney had already used Gen. David Petraeus' takeover as the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq in early February 2007 to do an end run about the Washington national security bureaucracy to establish the propaganda line that Iran was manufacturing explosively formed projectiles and shipping them to the Mahdi Army militiamen.

Petraeus was also a supporter of Cheney's proposal for striking Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps targets in Iran, going so far as to hint in an interview with Fox News last September that he had passed on to the White House his desire to do something about alleged Iranian assistance to Shiites that would require U.S. forces beyond his control.

At that point, Adm. Fallon was in a position to deter any effort to go around Defense Department and military opposition to such a strike because he controlled all military access to the region as a whole. But Fallon's forced resignation in March and the subsequent promotion of Petraeus to become CENTCOM chief later this year gives Cheney a possible option to ignore the position of his opponents in Washington once more in the final months of
Click to expand...

http://www.military.com/news/article/ex-official-says-dod-nixed-iran-attack.html?wh=wh

pizzaman, Jun 11, 2008 IP

ThraXed Peon

Messages:: 1,794

Likes Received:: 56

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 0

#2

Revolutionary guard bases now? I thought they wanted to bomb uranium enrichment sites.

ThraXed, Jun 11, 2008 IP

pizzaman Active Member

Messages:: 4,053

Likes Received:: 52

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 90

#3

ThraXed said: ↑

Revolutionary guard bases now? I thought they wanted to bomb uranium enrichment sites.
Click to expand...

as i have said before attacking the nuclear sites can result in a nuclear accident. russia will not allow any thing like that and neither any other sane person.the article also talks a little about that plan being nixed.
that leaves the neocons desperate. will there be anything left of the military by the time that shrub finishes with it.

pizzaman, Jun 11, 2008 IP

earlpearl Well-Known Member

Messages:: 3,584

Likes Received:: 150

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 155

#4

that is a very interesting article.

It seems like f*cking up w/ a myriad of problems after his first effort in Iraq hasn't satisfied Dick Cheney.

Good thing there are more effective counterbalances in govt at this point in time. I dread the response had Rumsfeld been at the Pentagon.

earlpearl, Jun 11, 2008 IP

pizzaman Active Member

Messages:: 4,053

Likes Received:: 52

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 90

#5

earlpearl said: ↑

that is a very interesting article.

It seems like f*cking up w/ a myriad of problems after his first effort in Iraq hasn't satisfied Dick Cheney.

Good thing there are more effective counterbalances in govt at this point in time. I dread the response had Rumsfeld been at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

More and more these people look like the corporates suits. a bunch of f---ng yes man without any skill whatsoever Incompetent. i think they should all be fired,[neo cons]
just look at the difference between gates and dumbsfeld
i have an idea that i think good enough.
i was thinking that we can negotiate with iranians and have them agree to a full time presence of inspectors after a two-five year freeze.
this will allow us enough time to integrate them with the rest of the world and help their moderates indirectly. This way we would hold them back more than any attack that we can make and opens up the opportunity to be friendly [china model] and remove the treat permanently

pizzaman, Jun 11, 2008 IP

Log in or Sign up

DoD Nixed Iran Attack

pizzaman Active Member

ThraXed Peon

pizzaman Active Member

earlpearl Well-Known Member

pizzaman Active Member

Useful Searches