Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Attack Iran? Cheney's Already Tried
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Debate Continues, but There's Little Doubt Speculators Are Adding to Pain at the Pumps
Thomas Palley
Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
'The Dope Craze That's Terrorizing Vancouver'
Lani Russwarm
Election 2008:
An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?
Heather Gehlert
Environment:
Palin Is a Global-Warming-Denying, Polar-Bear-Dissing, Pat Buchanan Acolyte
Joseph Romm
ForeignPolicy:
Bush Is Pouring Gas on Afghanistan's Bonfire
Chris Hedges
Health and Wellness:
Universal Health Coverage Is No Silver Bullet
Niko Karvounis
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration: Too Hot for the Dems?
Roberto Lovato
Media and Technology:
How the Media's Tarring of Hillary Hurt Obama Too
Eric Boehlert
Movie Mix:
Hollywood Gets Muslims Wrong, Again
Wajahat Ali
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Americans' Attitudes Toward Breastfeeding Are Making Our Kids Sick
Aisha Qaasim
Rights and Liberties:
Reconstruction After Katrina: Brazen Housing Discrimination Continues
Lizzy Ratner
Sex and Relationships:
Yet Another Obscenity Trial? We Should Be Ashamed
Dr. Marty Klein
War on Iraq:
Sadr Announces Suspension of Mahdi Army "Indefinitely"
Water:
Alaska Chooses Largest Gold Mine Over Clean Water
Kari Lydersen
WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W Bush administration official.
J Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.
McClatchy newspapers reported last August that Cheney had proposal several weeks earlier "launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran", citing two officials involved in Iran policy.
According to Carpenter, who is now at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, a strongly pro-Israel think-tank, Pentagon officials argued that no decision should be made about the limited airstrike on Iran without a thorough discussion of the sequence of events that would follow an Iranian retaliation for such an attack. Carpenter said the DoD officials insisted that the Bush administration had to make "a policy decision about how far the administration would go - what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks".
The question of escalation posed by DoD officials involved not only the potential of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq to attack, Carpenter said, but possible responses by Hezbollah and by Iran itself across the Middle East.
Carpenter suggested that DoD officials were shifting the debate on a limited strike from the Iraq-based rationale, which they were not contesting, to the much bigger issue of the threat of escalation to full-scale war with Iran, knowing that it would be politically easier to thwart the proposal on that basis.
The former State Department official said DoD "knew that it would be difficult to get interagency consensus on that question".
The Joint Chiefs were fully supportive of the position taken by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Cheney proposal, according to Carpenter. "It's clear that the military leadership was being very conservative on this issue," he said.
At least some DoD and military officials suggested that Iran had more and better options for hitting back at the United States than the United States had for hitting Iran, according to one former Bush administration insider.
Former Bush speechwriter and senior policy adviser Michael Gerson, who had left the administration in 2006, wrote a column in the Washington Post on July 20, 2007, in which he gave no hint of Cheney's proposal, but referred to "options" for striking Iranian targets based on the Cheney line that Iran "smuggles in the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers".
Gerson cited two possibilities: "Engaging in hot pursuit against weapon supply lines over the Iranian border or striking explosives factories and staging areas within Iran." But the Pentagon and the military leadership were opposing such options, he reported, because of the fear that Iran has "escalation dominance" in its conflict with the United States.
That meant, according to Gerson that, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs".
See more stories tagged with: dick cheney, iran, pentagon, 2007
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »