Washington Post:

A Failing Campaign
By swearing off military action, a U.S. commander weakens the diplomatic offensive against Iran.
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A16

ADM. WILLIAM J. Fallon, the U.S. Middle East commander who resigned on Tuesday, was portrayed in a recent Esquire magazine article as the main obstacle to a potential decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iran. Though the article seems to have precipitated Adm. Fallon's resignation, the assertion was ludicrous on more than one count.

First, there is very little impetus among senior Bush administration officials for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next 10 months. More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives.

In fact, notwithstanding the passage last week of a third U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution, the diplomatic offensive against Iran is flagging. Not only has the threat of U.S. force been undermined, but a December National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had stopped work on the weaponization branch of its nuclear work gave numerous governments an excuse to oppose the sort of tough sanctions that might work.

The latest resolution contains mostly symbolic steps; efforts by France and Britain to push the European Union into adopting its own measures so far have gone nowhere. Though there are signs of some discontent inside Iran with the hard-line government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today's parliamentary election will be a match between conservatives because of the exclusion of hundreds of opposition candidates.

This doesn't mean the Bush administration should abandon diplomacy or prepare for war. As we have said, we oppose an attack on the Iranian nuclear program by this administration. Not all the steps that might be taken against Iran have been tried: For example, the administration is now considering new sanctions against the Iranian central bank, which could enhance what has been a modestly successful effort to squeeze Tehran's access to the international financial system. The administration should continue to press for action by the European Union, which could adopt measures that would seriously threaten the Iranian economy if the governments of E.U. countries were to choose to stop protecting their own business executives. Democratic presidential candidates are proposing broad bilateral negotiations with the Islamist regime, although an established bilateral channel in Iraq has produced no results.

Certainly, a new U.S. military chief in the Middle East should be prepared to take military action against Iran and should avoid ostentatious posturing to the contrary. That readiness, even if never acted on, is essential to checking the surging ambitions of the current Iranian regime.



******************************************************************


Amos: in case you don't read the entire article, here is a point YOU need to be aware of"

"More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives. "