Sunday
Aug012010
Iran Analysis: Hyping the War Chatter --- US Military Chief Mike Mullen Speaks
Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 20:20 
So Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is on the Sunday talk show Meet the Press. Inevitably, after the discussion of the Wikileaks "War Diaries" and US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, host David Gregory seizes on the Iran war chatter:MR. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is worse?
Iran Analysis: More War, No Facts, Blah Blah (Chapter 23)
Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.
ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome.
And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.
MR. GREGORY: But leaders have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.
MR. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood.
MR. GREGORY: There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case?
ADM. MULLEN: I think that's the case.
MR. GREGORY: There aren't very many good options.
ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't--it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact.
MR. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?
ADM. MULLEN: We do.
Let's take it as read that Gregory, whose nose for news is the hysterical, provocative, and over-stated, would never think of asking if Iran is actually that close to nuclear military capability and certain would not countenance the possibility that Tehran may not be pursuing such an outcome.
To give Mullen credit, he tries to resist the Choice of the Absurd --- War or Iran's Nuclear Bomb? --- by calling both unacceptable. But because US Government policy relies precisely at that point on holding up the possibility of the ultimate Iranian threat, he can't escape Gregory's simple trap.
So the commander has not only to confirm, "The military actions have been on the table and remain on the table," but has to play Gregory's hyped-up game, "It's an important option."
And by the end of the interview, Gregory has his victory --- no talk left of diplomacy, no shred of the possibility of a political resolution (even though the US and Iran are closer to talks on uranium enrichment than they have been since last autumn), not even the standard recourse of sanctions. Nothing is left but "The Military Has a Plan".
You can guess the resulting headlines racing from country to country. Within minutes, Associated Press was putting out a few choice extracts, and minutes after that, Agence France Presse went even further by tacking on an exaggerated banner, "US Military Chief Admits to Iran Attack Plan". (There is no surprise admission here --- militaries always have attack plans. That's what they do as militaries.) Al Jazeera followed, "US Has 'Plan to Attack Iran'".
And minutes after that, guess what country's state media picked up and ran --- in the inevitable mirror image of US rhetoric about Iran --- with the imminent American threat? Press TV: "Mullen: US Has Plans to Attack Iran".
Reader Comments (13)
War, war and war! I am tired of hearing about war, killing and being killed.
Let us talk about education, job and paying back all the money we have borrowed from China and other nations to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Where is the sanity in these discussions about wars and talking with people who plan wars? I still cry visiting at the black granite memorial in DC, all those young people who gave their lives for a war started by a falsified event. The National Security Agency) concluded that information obtained in the Gulf of Tonkin incident of August 1964 was deliberately falsified to make it appear North Vietnamese gunboats attacked an American destroyer patrolling in international waters.
Why did Israel bomb the USS Liberty? USS Liberty was attacked by Israel in international waters by Israeli forces on June 8, 1967, killing 34 Americans and wounding another 174. Israel accused Egypt for bombing USS Liberty to instigate direct military conflict between US and Egypt.
Who would benefit in a long bloody war between US and Iran? No us!
I find it a little strange that EA is taking a line that says this war talk isn't really war talk, and that it's somehow being over-hyped. The "something awful" article in Time, and the subsequent chatter, seem to have a degree of deliberation about them. Surely folks like Mullen decide in advance with TV shows what questions they will allow to be asked, and prepare a response before reaching the studio? The art of interpreting these kinds of statements and conversations is an art, not a matter of reading into it one's own prejudices, and the notion that it was some kind of irrelevant word game or "trap" for Mullen is rather naïve, and the attempts to spin it into something else do resemble word games.
I think most reasonable people would accept that in modern societies, prior to any military engagement, there has to be discourse and discussion: this is part of it. What would be really interesting is a discussion of the likely consequences of military action, especially if (as I suspect) low-yield nukes will have to be a part of the plan -- truly "something awful". Or you can put your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la, I'm not listening", which is what EA reportage has amounted to lately.
Art,
I agree that militaries make preparations for conflict and so it makes sense to discuss this. At the same time, that discussion should take into account what is and what is likely, not indulge in speculation supported not by information but by political hype.
In the case of Iran, the US has not revised its 2007 intelligence finding that Tehran is years away from military nuclear capability. The IAEA has not found such preparations; at most, it has expressed concern that it has not had access to all parts of Iran's programme while saying it has not found any diversion of nuclear material.
Nor is there any indication from Tehran's latest moves of a move towards that capability. To the contrary, the information --- including that posted on EA --- indicates that Iran and the US are considering the resumption of talks on uranium enrichment.
Certainly discussion of the consequences of military action is in order. Putting a priority on discussion of military action --- limiting and even ignoring political and diplomatic developments --- is not necessarily so.
S.
RE "Certainly discussion of the consequences of military action is in order. Putting a priority on discussion of military action --- limiting and even ignoring political and diplomatic developments --- is not necessarily so."
But Scott, that doesn't make for sexy Sunday talk shows that sell headlines, And that's the reason every news agency and its brother's headlines were taken from Mullen's interview with Gregory instead of the following excerpts from the infinitely more knowledgeable and nuanced Fareed Zakaria interview with John Kerry on the same day:
ZAKARIA: What if General Petraeus says I need more time, I need maybe even 10,000 more troops? What would you do?
KERRY: I personally would say no, I don't think troops are the answer. The answer is a political resolution and that political resolution has to come about by engaging to a greater degree with India, with Pakistan itself.
But I think we should also engage China, Russia, and I would say to you that the possibility could exist even of Iran playing a role in helping to change the equation on the ground.
ZAKARIA: And you would talk to Iran about that?
KERRY: Absolutely. You bet I would. I think it could become a way even to get in on the other issues of concern to us, not just nuclear but the whole regional issue.
But I think Iran has interests in Afghanistan. They don't like the Taliban. They don't like narcotics being transited. There are reason that's they would want a stable government there.
And I think that we should -- you know, diplomacy is the art of playing to everybody's interests and everybody has some interests with respect to this outcome.
From: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/01/gps.exclusive.intv.cnn" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08...
I've been missing Zakaria lately, so thanks for this, Catherine.
Of course, Kerry has never been one to go to for a sexy sound byte, but he has been fairly consistent on pursuing engagement.
It would be none too soon for talks to resume on a nuclear swap deal. I am becoming fatigued by this war speculation.
I'd like to have something to say, like: "see? it's just the crazy neocons, don't fret." While H.Res. 1553 is a Tea Party concoction (of whom many would better be numerically classified as 5150), the steps by the Obama admin haven't been altogether reassuring, either. Is war imminent? No. Do I feel all fuzzy? No.
I wonder what you thought of Muhammad Sahimi's article (if this hasn't been addressed already). I've been a long time fan of his, but I sorta think he was hyperventilating and could have toned it down a wee bit.
Kurt,
I posted a link to Sahimi's article somewhere here last week - I don't know if anyone noticed. I'd guess you were referring to passages like: "The resolution, H. Res. 1553, represents a green light for a bombing campaign. It provides explicit support for military strikes, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of "all means necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force." This is while many top U.S. military leaders have warned that strikes could be catastrophic to national security interests and engulf the Middle East in a "calamitous" regional war. The hubris of the warmongering supporters of Israel in Congress knows no limit, however. If the bill were actually to pass, it would probably be the first time in history that the parliament of one nation urged a second nation to attack a third, and promised support for such an action." ?
At 54 readers' comments and counting, I think he may not be the only one who is hyperventilating :-)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/07/the-drumbeats-of-war-with-iran-are-getting-louder.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranb...
Catherine,
Thank you so much. I had missed this --- I wonder if it will have any resonance in public chatter this week, though I think Kerry's line is close to a significant faction within the Obama Administration (especially around Dick Holbrooke's office).
S.
"though I think Kerry's line is close to a significant faction within the Obama Administration (especially around Dick Holbrooke's office)."
OMG! Scott is on first name basis with Richard Holbrooke!!!
Only after a few glasses of decent whisky....
Scott -
I was wondering the same thing. While I would venture to say Kerry has a high level of credibility, I do not know who he has high enough influence over to make his comments move from rhetoric to action. I'm skeptical however....
Regards,
In "USA Interests: Iran and the Middle East"
http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2010/07/usa-interests-iran-and-middle-east.html" rel="nofollow">http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2010/07...
I had indicated "... our anger with the Iranian government since 1979 has had nothing to do with their nuclear fuel cycle, or an Iranian military threat to the Middle Eastern nations. In spite of our statements, Iranian nuclear fuel cycle, or state of democracy in Iran, or theocracy are not high priority issues relative to our national interests. What are the USA Interests in the Middle East?
Based on Noam Chomsky, General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that “the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability” in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term “stability” here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control.
Iranian threat is not military aggression. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields “substantial control of the world” (A. A. Berle).
Iranians have had difficulty to understand that they must submit to the US interests in the Middle East, like under Shah. Are we threatening and economically hurting Iran to force compliance with our political objectives for the region? We did the same thing in Iran prior to 1953 coup d'état.
Scott M | 9 July 2010...
I found your entry interesting so I've added a Trackback to it on my Journal...