Petraeus promotion an ominous sign of possible war with Iran

By Farrah Hassen
Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:17:38 pm CDT

The promotion of Gen. David Petraeus is another ominous sign that the Bush administration may attack Iran.

President Bush is nominating Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, to replace Adm. William Fallon as head of Centcom: U.S. Central Command, which oversees the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fallon was forced to resign last month after his outspoken opposition to an attack on Iran. Petraeus, by contrast, has been heating up the rhetoric against Iran.

"Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups," Petraeus testified to Congress in early April. Those special groups (meaning, the militias) pose the biggest threat to the United States, he added.

He blamed Iran for the rocket attacks on the Green Zone, and he warned, "We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead." Petraeus’ boss issued a warning of his own. "The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make," Bush said April 10. "If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners."

But neither Petraeus nor Bush mentioned the role Iran played in mediating a ceasefire between the Iraqi government and Shiite militias in Basra last month. Rather than blaming Iran, they should have been thanking it.

Bush has also continued to hype Tehran’s nuclear threat. Instead of acknowledging the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program, Bush criticized the report. In a March 20 interview with U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts into Iran, Bush insisted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government seeks "a nuclear weapon to destroy people - some in the Middle East." If the run-up to the Iraq War serves as an example, with the administration dismissing facts about Iraq that contradicted its case for regime change, Americans should remain concerned about a possible U.S. strike on Iran.

Bush could justify an attack on Iran’s military or nuclear facilities by claiming to protect U.S. troops in Iraq against Shiite militias with links to Tehran. Iran could retaliate by not only threatening those troops but also by inspiring Hezbollah in Lebanon to mobilize jihadists against Israel and the United States.

The United States cannot afford to be bogged down in another war. The projected cost of the Iraq War has reached $3 trillion. To date, more than 4,000 Americans have been killed there.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan remains unstable, and any attack by the United States on Iran would distract the Pentagon from its task of controlling Afghanistan and tracking down Osama bin Laden.

Such an attack would also inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. Already, according to a recent Arab Public Opinion poll, 83 percent of those polled in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates hold an unfavorable view of the United States.

A more constructive U.S. posture should elevate diplomacy and negotiations with Iran. Bush, along with the current presidential aspirants, should review the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.

Here’s one worth testing out: The United States should "engage directly" with Iran to "obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues." The alternative is just too hazardous.

Farrah Hassen is the Carol Jean and Edward F. Newman Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. She wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues; it is affiliated with The Progressive magazine. Readers may write to the author at: Progressive Media Project, 409 East Main Street, Madison, Wis. 53703; e-mail: pmproj@progressive.org; Web site: www.progressive.org. For information on PMP’s funding, please visit http://www.progressive.org/pmpabout.html#anchorsupport.

(c) 2008, Farrah Hassen

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Leave a Comment

All posts are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Email Address Required
   
Brian
May 1, 2008 5:52 PM
Farrah is overblowing this promotion. While I fully admit to not being inside pentagon/D.C. breifings I dont think bush is going to attack another country directly just months before his term is up. I do believe his remarks to the media about Iran's threat is saber rattling at this point in time. I do think Iran should be handled like a cold war situation. Be on alert against them with all possible means necessary, have forces on alert for them just in case Iran launches a major attack, but do NOT launch hostilities unless Iran attacks first in a major way. If Iran attacks our forces with small scale operatins such as patrol boats in the gulf for instance, these should be handled on a case by case basis. Since we are at war against islamic terrorists, being on alert should be there already by our military forces. The Pentagon should target strategic missles against Iran's military & industrial sites like we had them targeted against the USSR during the cold war if we have not done so already. I do belive we need to deal with Iran with all diplomatic solutions possible, but that does not mean put our head in the sand either.
Print This Story Email This Story

Blogs

Calendar of Events

Photos