Comments on: Petraeus v. Obama (Part 158): Israel and Iran http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/05/petraeus-v-obama-part-158-israel-and-iran/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:29:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Josh Mull http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/05/petraeus-v-obama-part-158-israel-and-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-3724 Josh Mull Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:19:34 +0000 http://enduringamerica.com/?p=8034#comment-3724 "Even as the Obama Administration has been pursuing engagement with Iran, Petraeus — both directly and through acolytes — has been loudly talking about Iranian support for insurgent operations against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan." OK, now I think I see where you're going with this. I've been a bit bewildered by these Iran-insurgency accusations coming from the Pentagon, especially since they always seemed to be dripping with normality, as opposed to a planted military response to diplomatic overtures from politicians. I'm still not entirely convinced this is a specifically Petraeus v Obama dynamic, but there is definitely some sort of faction in the military who may be seeking to discredit the command of President Obama. 75% chance it's conservative political elements (similar under Clinton) 50% chance it's Israeli-backed (Iran, Iran, Iran) 25% chance it's Saudi-backed (Sunni v Shiite, see Abdullah v Maliki at Arab League) 5% chance Petraeus is considering a political run in 2012-2016 (Eisenhower Redux) Either way, this type of bureaucratic squabbling could be very dangerous for the United States, not to mention the rest of the world forced to live with American consequences. “Even as the Obama Administration has been pursuing engagement with Iran, Petraeus — both directly and through acolytes — has been loudly talking about Iranian support for insurgent operations against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

OK, now I think I see where you’re going with this. I’ve been a bit bewildered by these Iran-insurgency accusations coming from the Pentagon, especially since they always seemed to be dripping with normality, as opposed to a planted military response to diplomatic overtures from politicians.

I’m still not entirely convinced this is a specifically Petraeus v Obama dynamic, but there is definitely some sort of faction in the military who may be seeking to discredit the command of President Obama.

75% chance it’s conservative political elements (similar under Clinton)
50% chance it’s Israeli-backed (Iran, Iran, Iran)
25% chance it’s Saudi-backed (Sunni v Shiite, see Abdullah v Maliki at Arab League)
5% chance Petraeus is considering a political run in 2012-2016 (Eisenhower Redux)

Either way, this type of bureaucratic squabbling could be very dangerous for the United States, not to mention the rest of the world forced to live with American consequences.

]]>