Doing The Iran Spin

By Cernig

With Gates apparently brought back to heel by Fallon's departure, the Pentagon is whole-heartedly rejoining administration efforts to demonise Iran's involvement in Iraq. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, previously a voice of caution, is now openly threatening a military option.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today accused Iran of increasing its shipments of weapons to militants in Iraq, despite promises by Iranian leaders that they would cut off the flow of arms.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said there was not a massive infusion of weapons but said over time there had been "a consistent increase" in arms shipments. Speaking at a morning news conference, Mullen said weapons had been intercepted in Iraq that showed evidence of relatively recent manufacture in Iran, adding that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, would lay out a fuller account of the evidence in the weeks to come.

...Mullen said the U.S. government will not take any option off the table in responding to the Iranian threat. But speaking to reporters today, Mullen repeatedly made clear that he preferred dealing with the problem through diplomatic or financial pressure rather than a military strike.

Still, Mullen said the military had plans to respond to a variety of potential incidents involving Iran. Mullen said while "a third conflict" in the Middle East would be "extremely stressful" on the military, no potential U.S. adversary should feel emboldened as a result.

"I have reserve capability in our Air Force and Navy," Mullen said. "It would be a mistake to think we are out of combat capability." [Emphasis Mine - C]

This is going to delight the "Faster, Please" lobby within the Bush administration and is exactly the kind of ratcheting up of rhetoric that many feared Petraeus' appointment to CentCom would bring. But I'm interested in what kind of evidence Saint Pet is going to put forward. The last time, the packaging of the narrative left a lot to be desired and led both Gates and the then CJCS to distance themselves from the administration's preferred line.

Mullen left himself some wiggle room too.

Mullen said today that it appeared that the arms flow had not stopped. He said he had "no smoking gun" that top leaders in Iran knew about or approved the flow of weapons. But he said he believed the leader of the Quds force, an elite wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with close ties to the top Iranian leadership, knew about the weapons flow.

Mullen said Iran was encouraging violence in Iraq in order to, in the long run, weaken the Iraqi central government. Encouraging violence and chaos, Mullen said, would help Iran cement itself as the most powerful country in the region.

That last bit is purest BS. Iran loves the Maliki/ISCI government as it does no other grouping in the Middle East. After all, their stated aim in life is to deliver a whole new oil-rich province into de-facto Iranian control, a perfect Anschluss set-up. But keeping the U.S. military stuck in a tar-pit of its own making is very much in Iran's interest. Sans Iraq, Mullen wouldn't have to be talking about "excess capacity" in the Air Force and Navy at all.

There's good reason to be sceptical about the hawkish line on Iran in Iraq. For one thing, there's the constantly evolving line on those nasty EFP armor-piercing bombs. It's gone from "Iran makes them all" to "Iran makes the best ones" (after EFP factories were found inside Iraq) and all hinges on an assertion that Iraqis are incapable of making them effictively themselves and so they must be Iranian. That assertion is, however, directly contradicted by Iraq's proudly-stated ability to do such precision machinery and widespread regional experience in making such devices for the oil industry (they're used in horizontal drilling techniques). Not a single EFP has ever been intercepted crossing the Iran/Iraq border.

For another, there's the regional black-market arms trade, utilizing centuries old smuggling routes through porous borders, which means that US pistols provided to the Iraqi security forces can turn up in terrorist hands in Turkey. (Note, no-one's saying the U.S. is deliberately, as a matter of policy, arming the PKK in Turkey.) From Lebanon to the Congo, weapons from a variety of nations keep turning up where they aren't supposed to be. U.S. assault rifles and ammunition have turned up in the latter nation despite a long-term ban on arms exports, for instance. Then there's the Pakistani ams bazaars, who say they can copy any weapon so well it's own maker cannot tell the difference. When Iraqi troops went into Basra recently, among their first arrests were three Pakistani arms dealers.

Iran exports a lot of weaponry legally to other nations in the region - and those nations often re-export them as black-market merchandise for the enrichment of corrupt leaders and generals. Iran isn't immune to such corruption either, and the Qods Force has always had some very shady methods of financing itself. It's most likely that corrupt commanders are making money from illegally re-directing their own country's armory.

Even where Qods Force involvement in arms dealing has previously been strongly indicated, those they have been dealing with are actually members of Maliki's inner circle. When the US military first arrested diplomats it accused of being Qods Force plotting arms sales and attacks on coalition forces, the arrests took place at ISCI head Hakim's compound and those arrested had meetings scheduled with national security advisor al-Rubei, Prime Minister Maliki and President Talibani later that day. Maliki himself called for the detained Iranian's release, saying they were in the country on official business with his government. There's no doubt that Iran would like to see the U.S. stuck in Iraq for a while longer and there's no doubt Iran would like to see Maliki's government stay in power. It's not meddling, surely, if it has central government permission.

That's the Occam's Razor explanation. If the U.S. is to contemplate attacking Iran for it's alleged role in Iraq, then let's not be nickel and dimed into war. The administration must, at some stage, produce the equivalent of an NIE on the issue - and the evidence, all of it, must be made available for scrutiny. No more "slam dunks" that aren't anything of the kind.

Update James Joyner (of the Atlantic Council) notes Mullen's words at Monday night�s Atlantic Council awards:

We also live in a time where Iran routinely pushes its way into more and more realms of instability. And I, for one, think it is important that we deal with that instability that they create, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas. Recent operations in Southern Iraq, recent combat operations in Southern Iraq in Basra highlighted yet again Iran�s activities in ways that very specifically pointed to activities which, in fact, resulted in the deaths of coalition soldiers. And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied, will have to deal with Iran in the very near future."

James adds that he missed the significance of this until it was brought to his attention by attendees "before a luncheon I attended today put on by The National Interest at the Nixon Center," and continues:

"I continue to believe that not only is military action against Iran simply not feasible but, contrary to the conventional wisdom, not part of the Bush administration�s agenda. One would think the world�s top military man doesn�t make a point of bringing up the need for action if trade sanctions or a stern diplomatic communique are all that�s on his mind. Then again, a little strategic ambiguity on these matters can help advance ones goals, especially when the options at hand are all unattractive."

Really just strategic ambiguity? Want to bet a war on it?