Friendly fire

Removing obstacle to a feared White House led pre-emptive military strike on Iran


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friendly fire
by Babak Talebi
12-Mar-2008
 

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Admiral William Fallon, the 41-year navy veteran and commander of US Central Command (CentCom) requested permission to retire, and that Secretary Gates approved his request. Last week, Thomas Barnett of Esquire Magazine published a revealing piece speculating that Fallon might be pushed out because he “was the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran.”

Gates was quick to call a press conference to announce the retirement and dispel the notion that there were any policy differences between Fallon and the administration. We have been following this story all day, and a few different theories are percolating inside the beltway about what this all means.

Though there are plenty of reasons to see this development suspiciously, Fallon’s history with conventional wisdom suggests that the truth may yet be unknown.

When Fallon was named to the CentCom post on January 5th, 2007, it was widely viewed in anti-war circles with trepidation. After all, CentCom had never had a naval officer as a leader, because the area under its purview is dominated by land. From the Sahara in the West to Kashmir in the East and the Caucus mountains in the North, this is an area with two active theatres of war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and half-a-dozen conflict zones.

Furthermore, Fallon was to replace General Abizaid, who had opposed the Iraq surge and advocated for a regional approach to Iraq; so it was natural for many policy analysts to be worried that he was being brought in to command a naval-based war with Iran from the Persian Gulf. This conventional wisdom was fully turned on its head a mere two months later when Fallon opposed a military build-up in the Persian Gulf, and was even quoted saying, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box," referring to Iran-war hawks.

Since March 2007, Fallon has been seen by many within the DC policy community as one of the main obstacles to a White House-led pre-emptive military strike on Iran. Then on December 3, 2007, when the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released, the conventional wisdom inside the beltway (except for a few notable exceptions) changed dramatically to believe that a war with Iran would be improbable. (As recently as last week, Steve Clemons dismissed “premeditated attack on Iran”.)

Then last week, a six-part Esquire piece was published. When asked about the possibility that Fallon was going to leave before his tenure was up, White House press spokes person Dana Perino attacked the “rumor mills that don’t turn out to be true.” Yet today it seems the ‘rumor mills’ have been justified.

One disheartening byproduct of this resignation is that Fallon was an advocate for an “Incident-at-Sea” agreement that NIAC has also called for. This agreement, if pursued, could help prevent an all-out war being sparked by relatively insignificant incidents, like the one that occurred in January of this year. According to reports, these types of ‘brush-ups’ occur regularly in the narrow and heavily-trafficked Strait of Hormuz.

Thus, it is easy to view Fallon’s ‘retirement’ as an internal power struggle between the more hawkish elements of the administration in the Pentagon and the Vice President’s office, and those trying to pull the ‘crazies’ back from the brink of war.

There are other plausible explanations.

In a personal conversation between NIAC and someone close to the CentCom commander, it was suggested that he is retiring intentionally to provide himself with a cushion of distance in order to be brought back (in a policy role) by a future administration. Another informed opinion close to Fallon has indicated that he may be leaving because he is confident enough that an attack on Iran will not occur.

Whatever the case may be now, Fallon’s role in the complicated US-Iran relationship has been consistently misinterpreted. This may be yet another occasion where there is more going on than meets the eye. Or, it could be the first indication of an imminent policy shift on Iran. We will keep you updated as we uncover more information.

Babak Talebi is Director of Community Relations at the National Iranian American Council.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Babak TalebiCommentsDate
Funny interview with Ahmadinejad
6
Nov 16, 2011
Babak Talebi: Skydiving
31
Sep 16, 2011
On the political map
2
Sep 14, 2008
more from Babak Talebi
 
default

Stop Hyperventilating:

by Anonymousmm (not verified) on Wed Mar 12, 2008 03:35 PM PDT

Stop Hyperventilating: Fallon Fired but Iran War Not Back On

March 11, 2008
The Washington Note
Steve Clemons

Admiral William "Fox" Fallon -- CentCom Commander -- has been fired for insubordination, for not stewarding his own views about war and peace privately and in a way that did not embarrass his commander in chief. By numerous accounts, President Bush was absolutely enraged by an Esquire article -- since amended noting Fallon's demise -- that posited that Admiral Fallon was not on the same page as President Bush and that he was the single military man standing between war and peace.

Rumors are running rampant now in the aftermath of Fallon's resignation today that Bush called a war room gathering on Saturday this past weekend -- and launched plans to hatch a strike of some sort on Iran this spring. Internet bulletin boards, listserves, and chatter among many on the left and the right are hyperventilating (and some excited) about the prospects of a hot conflict with Iran.

My sources in the intelligence arena, in various command staff operations, near Defense Secretary Gates, and even in the White House tell me that nothing structural has changed in America's stance towards Iran. The US is still engaged in an effort to get Iran to the negotiating table if it stops its nuclear enrichment activities. It is continuing to apply UN sanctions pressure via unanimous consent of the UN Security Council to bring Iran into compliance with international obligations. And as Bush, Gates and others have said -- other options can be on the table...read more

//www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/03/...

Please don't censor this. THere is nothing offensive about this post.


  •  
default

masoudA: non-immigrant "euro"s ?

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Wed Mar 12, 2008 01:40 PM PDT

wake up dude, they'are all voting for Obama.


  •  
masoudA

I have no Respect for NIAC - but

by masoudA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:35 PM PDT

I am begining to Like Babak - since he seems to have recognized the need to interact with the Iranian/American community. 

First as a 40 years resident of USA - let me give you a couple of advices about America.  Don't mistake DC, Boston, LA and SFran crowds with actual Americans.  Don't take the liberal idealogies coming out of Hollywood too seriously either.  Live in the heartland and you will know what American conservatism is and where it gets it's strenghts.   

Second - please watch this Newt clip to better understand what is in the mind of an average American these days - it's just that because of his "Dead Career" Gingrich is one of the few who dares to speak it.

//edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

I am pretty much sure this is pretty much the mindset in non immigrant Euroes.  

Now - I see good news here too - if we play our cards right we can use/help the "world" to get rid of terror in the world - and in the process help the population in Iran to get rid of a terrorist regime along with it's terror culture. 


  •  
Anonymouse

MahmoudG we're supposed to be batarbiyat now.

by Anonymouse on Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:42 AM PDT

But are you nuts?  surgical attacks? has it ever worked? did it worked in Iraq during the first Gulf war? they had to go in and get their hands dirty.  And that was when they had a fresh army and not been bogged down in 2 wars for 5 years with an average spending of $12B per month.  That's 12 Billion.

Nafaset az jay-e garm dar miyad? If you're thinking of Israel's strike on Iraq in 1982 that was what 26 years ago? and Iraq was much closer to Israel (no air refueling) and they destroyed a dilapidated building with a basic program? and Saddam was a coward. Don't you think if they could have done a "surgical strike" they would have done it by now?

Get up and get real.  Bush and company are crazy enough to do something but it is only going to make things worse, much worse.  Of course some are seeing the situation in Iraq as getting better.  You may be in that group of thought.  If that is the case, then sorry I'm sure you're thinking a strike in Iran is going to make things "better".


  •  
mahmoudg

Surgical attacks are necessary

by mahmoudg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:13 AM PDT

As much respect as I have for NIAC and support its democratic values, but I beleive surgical attacks on Iranains assets are the only way to ensure the complete erradication of the Islamic Republic from Iran.  The current regime knows that its legitimacy has been in doubt for a long time and if left to the Iranian nation to remove them from power, knows that Islam will be in danger.  Hence it is prepared to slaughter millions to stay in power.  Fallon and other Naive Americans do not realize the severity of the situation the world is in.  Our only salvation is to follow a stratgey of constant pounding of the regime's stonghold.  US planners have followed this strategy for some time, hence why Fallon, a naval admiral was selected.  The US knows the only way not to get mirred in Iran is to use the Persian Gulf as the launching platform for the destruction of the reime and not the Iranian people.


  •  
Babak Talebi

A few more relevant Articles

by Babak Talebi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:51 AM PDT

This has been cross posted at niacINsight.com as well:

//niacblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/fallons-r...

 

I have read a few other relevant articles I wanted to share with you. First, an opinion supporting the firing and backing up Gate's stated reasoning by Mark Perry: //www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak03....

The National Security Network has compiled a list of publicly available differences between Fallon and the WH: //www.nsnetwork.org/node/255

Gareth Porter, A noted FP analyst and author has a different take: //www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak01....

 

Babak Talebi

Director of Community Relations, NIAC

www.niacouncil.org

"Promoting Iranian-American Participation in American Civic Life"


  •  
Fred

The bashful Islamist lobby

by Fred on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:19 AM PDT

The Islamist lobby NIAC is advocating “incident at sea” agreement and has a “a personal conversation between NIAC and someone close to the CentCom commander”  and still insist it is not a Islamist lobby.


  •  
« first‹ previous12