According to an article in today's Washington Post ("Centcom Pick Warns of Iran Influence in Gulf Region"), Virginia's senior Senator, John Warner, is calling for "battleship diplomacy" against Iran:
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), while calling the use of military force against Iran "the very last resort," suggested that the United States use its Navy to conduct "battleship diplomacy" and create a "ring of deterrence" around Iran. He also suggested that European nations "send a ship or two to also add to the strength of the signal we're trying to send to that country, that we're not going to permit them to go forward with nuclear power."
Warner was speaking at confirmation hearings for Admiral William J. Fallon, the Bush Administration's pick to replace General John Abizaid as head of U.S. Central Command ("Centcom"). As we know, Centcom's area of responsibilty includes Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Fallon currently heads up the Pacific Command ("Pacom"), whose "AOR" covers Southeast Asia, Australia, East Africa and the Pacific Rim.
According to the Nation magazine, the choice of Fallon to head up Centcom is one of several "Ominous Signs of a Wider War" in the Middle East region.
If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte.
In addition, The Nation points out that "Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Which brings us back to the Fallon confirmation hearing yesterday. According to the Washington Post report, Senator Warner asked Fallon, "Does that ["battleship diplomacy" against Iran] have any interest or appeal to you, that concept?" Fallon responded:
"Senator, the whole idea is most appealing," Fallon replied, "because we've got plenty to do right now with active combat operations ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's clear to me that to date, the Iranians have not been playing a constructive role in addressing any of these, and in fact are challenging us in other areas."
So, there you have it: "battleship diplomacy" against Iran is "most appealing" and obviously the way we're heading vis-a-vis Iran. Meanwhile, Jim Webb continues to wait for Condoleezza Rice to answer his question, "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?" Note to Sen. Webb: you might want to talk to John Warner about this, but I think we have our answer, courtesy of Admiral Fallon.
Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran's two biggest enemies - the Taliban and Saddam - "there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans," Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. "There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States."More important, when people say, "The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict," they are wrong. It's second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.
That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran's active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.
This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro's Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran's Castros...
Read the whole article here if you subscribe to the New York Times online edition.
Another military action againts Iran at this point would be even more reckless than our military action against Iraq.
Former Army Chief of Staff John Wickham once said: "Let the blood of the Infantry run through your veins, or the blood of the infantry will be on your hands". It was an admonition to us Rear-echelon Staff Pukes to remember that soldiers' lives were in our hands and we had better be careful. The same could be said of our political leaders.
I am sure that this unimaginative administration looked into its presidential index under "Nuclear Confrontation, Rogue Regime, Past Strategies" and came up with something resembling the Clinton policy.
I'm not sure that the aircraft carrier group is going to make a difference one way or another.
Another possible rationale for sending two aircraft carrier groups to the region could center around keeping the Straits of Hormuz open. (The Iranians have threatened to close it--and 20% of the world's oil supply down--if full blown sanctions go into place).