US Attempts To Calm Fear of War with Iran

Defense Secretary Gates has released a statement attempting to calm fears that Admiral Fallon’s departure from the military may signal an upcoming War with Iran as “ridiculous.”

U.S.: Resignation doesn’t mean Iran war

* Pentagon: Resignation of Mideast military chief does not mean war with Iran
* Esquire magazine portrayed Adm. William Fallon as resisting pressure for war
* Fallon had said U.S. must exhaust diplomatic options in disputes with Iran
* Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he accepts the resignation with regret

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has dismissed as “ridiculous” any suggestion that the resignation of America’s military chief in the Middle East signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

The perception that Fallon has opposed a drive toward military action against Iran from within the Bush administration dates to his confirmation hearings in January 2007, when he told the Senate the United States needed to exhaust all diplomatic options in its disputes with the Islamic republic.

But Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Fallon’s resignation showed that independent views “are not welcomed in this administration.”

“It is also a sign that the administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq war, which has so damaged America’s security interests in the Middle East and beyond,” said Reid, D-Nevada. “Democrats will continue to examine these matters very closely in the coming weeks and months.” MUCH MORE

I wish it was “ridiculous” to assume or even imply that War with Iran was more likely with Admiral Fallon out of the picture, who has been the voice of reason - and according to a live commentary on CNN, was America’s “only senior military officer that was against a war with Iran.” (Paraphrased, and may not be the exact phraseology used.) I find it hard to believe that Admiral Fallon was the only voice of logic and caution among “senior” military officials - and if CNN is correct, then it seems likely that without Admiral Fallon’s long-known apposition to war - that voice will no longer be heard, so in spite of Secretary Gate’s belief that it’s “ridiculous” to believe that Fallon’s departure may signal increased rhetoric and/or tensions with Iran that could eventually lead to war seem to be far-fetched and defy our perception of “who” has been working behind the scenes within our own military to prevent a war that would be disastrous to our economy, not to mention completely destabilizing the entire Middle-East.

Israel’s President Shimon Peres recently stated that Israel would not carry out a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In fact, he stated: “Under no circumstance. We are not so imprudent as to concentrate the Iranian danger on Israel.” It is also noteworthy that in the same article, President Peres DID NOT state they would not attack Iran, but only that Israel would not attempt to go it alone:

Report: Peres says Israel will not act alone to halt Iran nuke program

Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, President Shimon Peres was quoted as saying on Saturday.

In an interview with France’s Le Figaro newspaper ahead of a trip to Paris next week, Peres said, however, if economic sanctions failed to persuade Iran to stop its contested nuclear program then “non-military options would be used up.”

Asked if Israel would act alone to stop Iran getting the bomb, Peres, a former prime minister who currently holds no executive power, replied: “Under no circumstance. We are not so imprudent as to concentrate the Iranian danger on Israel.”

“It’s a problem that the rest of the world must resolve. With the long-range missiles developed by Iran the problem is not only Israeli,” Peres added. MORE

Oil prices have been rising in spite of lower US consumption, which appears to be developing into a trend as gas prices rise, and the subsequent rise in oil futures is being blamed on the weak US Dollar.

Oil reaches a new record high

# Oil prices reached an all new trading high on Tuesday
# IEA is warning that there will be little relief from high oil prices
# Speculation on the falling dollar has driven oil’s rally from $87 a barrel in January
# The dollar has fallen to three-year lows against the yen

U.S. Energy Information Administration releases its short-term energy outlook later Tuesday and weekly oil and product inventory data on Wednesday. These indicators, along with the Commerce Department’s retail sales data release on Thursday, are traditionally used as cues for oil prices, though their impact has been muted lately.

A Dow Jones Newswires survey of analysts found an average forecast of a 1.7 million barrel increase in oil inventories for the week ending March 7, a 100,000 barrel increase in gasoline stocks and a 2 million barrel draw in distillate inventories.

Many analysts believe the rise in crude prices is not supported by the market’s underlying fundamentals, noting that supplies are generally rising while demand is falling. (Emphasis added.)

“Crude oil futures’ relentless advance is a price bubble and certainly, a sharp pullback cannot be ruled out,” Shum said. MORE

As in many world events that are speculated upon by the news media and the thousands of Blogs that attempt to cover these events, one fact always seems to hold true; those who have the money, and I mean “big money”, generally appear to have a better insight into what may lie in the future - which often results in market surges that defy common logic, but in the end, are usually supported by a national or global event that somehow “justified” the speculation and rise in cost. Those who hold the power also control the money, and I firmly believe trade on inside political knowledge and leaks from their cronies on Capitol Hill who also profit by financial gains from their supporters drive much of the speculation on oil. While the weak US dollar may be contributing to higher crude prices, it’s also my believe the spike in oil is based on the fear of a potential war with Iran which would disrupt the entire oil market - and I also believe that Admiral Fallon’s rapid departure from the military is significantly raising the fear among oil speculators that War with Iran is now more of a possibility then it was when he remained in command and constantly voiced his opposition to an Iranian war.

For the time being, all we can do is speculate, however, there is one event that we should be aware of and watch closely to see if any change in our carrier deployments is made in the near future. Admiral Fallon effectively scuttled the deployment of a third carrier group in the Middle-East, and if that third carrier group is deployed - then I believe that will signal an escalation with the conflict with Iran:

PUTTING THE CRAZIES BACK IN THE BOX….

Remember that plan from last February to send a third carrier group to the Persian Gulf in order to rattle a few sabers at Iran? Newsweek reported it in their February 19 issue, but then carried a correction saying that “In fact, the USS Nimitz is scheduled to replace one of the other carrier groups operating there.” (Italics mine.) Later, when the Nimitz carrier strike group sailed from San Diego, the Navy reported that it would indeed be a replacement, not an addition. “There is no plan to overlap them at all,” they said.

So what really happened? There’s no telling for sure, but Gareth Porter claims that there was originally a plan to overlap the carrier groups, but that it was scuttled by Admiral William Fallon, who had been appointed as the new CENTCOM commander at around the time the plan was hatched. Here’s his story:

Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

“He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it,” says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon’s message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.” LINK

There is no definitive way to glean whether or not Secretary Gates and the Pentagon’s statements are true - or simply a smokescreen designed to deescalate tensions while we ready ourselves for war. With at least 935 proven lies to the American public by the Bush administration currently noted, it’s hard to believe anything they say - especially as it pertains to Iran and the perpetual war machine that seems to be the real legacy of the Bush administration.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (106 articles, 5 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 266 comments) on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 9:24:25 AM
 

Another Bush brillant move

The reality is far less sensational but brillant:

1) For sure Bush sees it is his destiny, his last chance to hit his third 'Axis of Evil' before he leaves office. He sees he must do this in order for history to certify him as a true 21th century crusader, one who created the foundation for permanent wars in that region. But, alas, the actual aproval for war must come from China, the rich Gulf states and Israel. These are the countries who will finance it because Bush has no more money. They will set the goals of the hit, for their own benefits naturally. Bush will set the target for US casualties. Since Bush has shown that he is completely happy with 'only' a few thousand US killed, he should have no problem doing his part of the grand bargain.

2) The Fallon firing is just an administrative adjustment. The purpose is to outsource the office of the Joint Chiefs, the field chief commanders and their military assets to the private sector. This way, basic military assets can be transformed by 'securitization' and thus leveraged to create twenty times more wealth, a strategy proven by Wall Street wizards. With securitization, ownership shares can be sold at great profit, thus facilitating China, rich Gulf states and Israel to buy into the game. And this is how these countries will finance the Iran war. Brillant move!

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 194 comments) on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM
 

Fallon didn't get it

by steve real (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 10:06:20 PM
 

Fallon Did Get It

Adm. Fallon did the right and admirable thing by refusing to be a puppet in this administrations rush to take us into a possible nuclear war in the middle east. Ron Paul received more contributions to his campaign then the rest of the field combined; by saying bring our troops home now. Stop empire building we can't afford these never ending wars of choice. We will be forced to end this insanity as the dollar collapses and we enter a depression. We need to return to the ideals put forth in our Constitution...we have lost our way.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM