WASHINGTON, May 15 (IPS) - Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.

Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.

The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.

Admiral Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and last January, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the U.S. conflict with Iran.

Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job."

Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January six weeks earlier than originally planned in order to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to "send a message to Tehran".

But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously.

Two well-informed sources say they heard about such a plan being pushed at high levels of the administration, and Newsweek's Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari reported Feb. 19 that the deployment of a third carrier group to the Gulf was "likely".

That would have brought the U.S. naval presence up to the same level as during the U.S. air campaign against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, when the Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk carrier groups were all present. Two other carrier groups helped coordinate bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.

The deployment of three carrier groups simultaneously was not part of a plan for an actual attack on Iran, but was meant to convince Iran that the Bush administration was preparing for possible war if Tehran continued its uranium enrichment programme.

At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But 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."

Fallon's opposition to adding a third carrier strike group to the two already in the Gulf represented a major obstacle to the plan. The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon's predecessor at CENTCOM, Gen. John Abizaid, according to a Dec. 20 report by the Washington Post's Peter Baker. But as Baker reported, the circumstances left little doubt that Abizaid was doing so because the White House wanted it as part of a strategy of sending "pointed messages" to Iran.

CENTCOM commander Fallon's refusal to request the deployment of a third carrier strike group meant that proceeding with that option would carry political risks. The administration chose not to go ahead with the plan. Two days before the Nimitz sailed out of San Diego for the Gulf on Apr. 1, a Navy spokesman confirmed that it would replace the Eisenhower, adding, "There is no plan to overlap them at all."

The defeat of the plan for a third carrier task group in the Gulf appears to have weakened the position of Cheney and other hawks in the administration who had succeeded in selling Bush on the idea of a strategy of coercive threat against Iran.

Within two weeks, the administration's stance had already begun to shift dramatically. On Jan. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dismissed direct talks with Iran in the absence of Tehran's suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as "extortion". But by the end of February, Rice had gotten authorisation for high level diplomatic contacts with Iran in the context of a regional meeting on Iraq in Baghdad.

The explanation for the shift offered by administration officials to the New York Times was that the administration now felt that it "had leverage" on Iran. But that now appears to have been a cover for a retreat from the more aggressive strategy previously planned.

Throughout March and April, the Bush administration avoided aggressive language and the State Department openly sought diplomatic engagement with Iran, culminating in the agreement confirmed by U.S. officials last weekend that bilateral talks will begin with Iran on Iraq.

Despite Vice President Dick Cheney's invocation of the military option from the deck of the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf last week, the strategy of escalating a threat of war to influence Iran has been put on the shelf, at least for now.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. (END/2007)

ipsnews.net/print.asp

Fallon Resigns as Mideast Military Chief, Gates Says (with video)

Tuesday, March 11, 2008; 6:18 PM

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced today that the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, is retiring at the end of the month because of perceptions that he is at odds with Bush administration policy on Iran.

Gates told a hastily arranged news conference at the Pentagon that these perceptions were false. But he said Fallon has "made the right decision."

Gates quoted Fallon as having told him early this morning that "the current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do." Gates said he approved Fallon's request to retire "with reluctance and regret."

Contrary to a recent Esquire magazine article that described differences between Fallon and the White House, Gates said, the admiral's departure does not mean that the United States is heading toward war with Iran.

"That's just ridiculous," Gates said.

However, congressional Democrats raised concerns that the retirement means a dissenting voice is being silenced.

In a statement, Fallon, a Vietnam War veteran with nearly 42 years of Navy service, said, "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region. And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

He said he has "therefore concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction."

Gates told reporters that Fallon "reached this difficult decision entirely on his own." The Pentagon chief added: "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy."

Gates said that in talks with Fallon, "we have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so."

He called Fallon's decision to retire "a cumulative kind of thing" and not "the result of any one article or any one issue."

The story on Fallon in last week's Esquire portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's policy toward Iran, describing the admiral as taking a lonely position against U.S. military action to stop Iran's nuclear program. The administration suspects that Iran secretly harbors a desire to build nuclear weapons using enriched uranium produced by a program that has triggered United Nations sanctions.

The Tehran government insists that it wants to enrich uranium solely to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.

Fallon also reportedly has a difficult relationship with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Fallon took over as head of the Central Command in March 2007 following the retirement of Army Gen. John P. Abizaid. The admiral previously served as commander of the U.S. Pacific Command.

In his brief news conference, Gates said Fallon, who plans to step down effective March 31, will be replaced temporarily by his deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Gates said Dempsey will serve as acting commander of Central Command "until permanent relief can be nominated and confirmed."

Asked whether there was any truth to the portrayal of Fallon as someone trying to prevent war with Iran in the face of an administration "eager" for such a conflict, Gates replied: "No. I think that's one of the misperceptions that Admiral Fallon was referring to. The fact is that administration policy is to try and deal with the Iranian challenge through diplomatic and economic pressures and sanctions. And Fox, obviously, was fully supportive of that."

In a statement issued by the White House, Bush noted that Fallon was the first naval officer to head the Central Command and said he "deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made" in the command's area of responsibility, "especially in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Bush made no mention of any differences with Fallon.

But in separate statements, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the retirement raises questions about the administration's treatment of dissenters.

Reid described the departure as "yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this administration." He also called it "a sign that the administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq war," and he pledged that Democrats would scrutinize these matters in the weeks and months ahead.

Pelosi, who called Fallon "careful, forthright and direct," said his resignation "is a disappointment to those of us who viewed his reputation for candor as an essential asset in his role as CENTCOM commander." She added that if his departure "was engineered by the Administration over policy differences, that loss is compounded significantly."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) suggested that "Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon's resignation is another example of truth-tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush administration. His departure must not clear the way for a rush to war with Iran."

Calling Fallon "a voice of common sense and truth in an administration where candor has been in tragically short supply," Kerry praised the admiral for warning about diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan and rushing to war with Iran.

"The looming question now is whether the cost of Admiral Fallon's candor was his job," Kerry said.

TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK ON:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031101805.html?referrer=emailarticle