Bush
Escalates War Threats
Against Iran
By Joe Kay
16 February, 2007
World
Socialist Web
At
a White House press conference Wednesday morning, President George Bush
laid out the administration’s pretext for military action against
Iran. He did so while making clear that the administration is proceeding
with its military escalation in Iraq in defiance of popular opposition
and the likely passage in the House of Representatives of a Democratic-sponsored
non-binding resolution criticizing the increased troop deployment.
Bush’s remarks on Iran,
which came in the question-and-answer period following his opening statement,
centered on US allegations that Iran has been supplying elements of
the Iraqi resistance with explosive weapons used against US soldiers.
At a press briefing held in Baghdad on Sunday, unnamed US officials
accused “the highest level of the Iranian government” of
supplying the weapons. Without offering evidence, the officials claimed
that roadside bombs which they displayed to reporters had been smuggled
into Iraq under the direction of the Quds Force, a special unit of Iran’s
Islamic Republican Guard.
Two days later, the chairman
of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, contradicted the claims
of the unnamed officers, stating that there was no evidence of high-level
Iranian involvement.
Bush’s press conference
was intended to shore up the administration’s war propaganda against
Iran in the aftermath of Pace’s statement. Answering a question
about his reaction to Pace’s remarks, Bush insisted, “What
we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these
deadly IEDs [improvised explosive devices] to networks inside of Iraq.
We know that. We also know that the Quds force is part of the Iranian
government.”
On the question of whether
top officials in the Iranian government knew about this alleged activity,
Bush acknowledged that the US government had no proof. But he argued
that the question was irrelevant, saying, “Either they knew or
they didn’t know, and what matters is that [the weapons are] there.
What’s worse, that the government knew or the government didn’t
know?” Later in the press conference Bush repeated the same rhetorical
question verbatim.
Bush continued, “When
we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq,
we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices
into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our
troops—I mean, to the people who are commanders—that we’ll
protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq
and will continue doing so.”
Twice in the course of the
question-and-answer period Bush repeated the same rationale for military
action against Iran: that such action would be a “defensive”
response to Iranian-backed attacks on US troops in Iraq. He suggested
no limitations either on the type of military actions contemplated or
their location, implicitly leaving open a direct attack within the borders
of Iran.
Asked specifically if there
was a danger that US retaliation could lead to full-scale war with Iran,
Bush refused to rule out such an outcome.
His statements marked a shift
from those made the previous day by White House Press Secretary Tony
Snow, who declared, “We’re not going to war with [Iran].
Let me make that clear. So anybody who is trying to use this as ‘the
administration trying to lay the predicate for a war with Iran’—no,
we’re committed to diplomacy with Iran. But we are also committed
to protecting our forces.”
Bush was twice asked what
reason the American people had to believe the intelligence presented
against Iran, given the bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction
and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties used to justify the invasion of Iraq. NBC News
correspondent David Gregory asked: “Critics say that you are using
the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the
case for war in Iraq—specifically about WMD—that turned
out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war
against Iran. Is that the case?”
Bush sidestepped the question
and repeated his claims of Iranian involvement: “The idea that
somehow we’re manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing
IEDs is preposterous . . . My job is to protect our troops. And when
we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops,
we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple.”
In his opening remarks, Bush
focused on the military escalation in Iraq, noting, “The operation
to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there will be violence.”
He mentioned, almost as a footnote, the agreement that had been announced
between the US and North Korea the previous day regarding that country’s
nuclear weapons program.
In defending his Iraq policy,
Bush alluded to the dishonest and hypocritical character of the Democratic
Party’s opposition. The Democrats are posing as critics of the
war while assuring the US ruling elite that, whatever tactical differences
they may have with Bush’s policy, they remain committed to defeating
the Iraqi resistance and upholding the interests of American imperialism
in Iraq and the Middle East.
Bush noted that the US Senate
last month voted unanimously to approve the nomination of General David
Petraeus as commander of US forces in Iraq, knowing that Patraeus had
been chosen by the administration for the specific purpose of overseeing
the troop “surge” and counter-insurgency operation in Baghdad.
He pointed out that the resolution
currently being debated in the House of Representatives “disapproving”
of the administration’s escalation is non-binding. He then said,
“Soon Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation
that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops.”
With these words Bush, in
keeping with the general political thrust of supporters of his war policy—including
the former Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Lieberman—was
calling the Democrats’ bluff. Knowing that the Democrats are desperate
to demonstrate their “support for the troops” and avoid
any action reducing or ending war funding, he was exposing the two-faced
character of their position in advance of next month’s vote on
the war spending bill.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights