|
The Coming
Clash With Iran
By Pat Buchanan
February 03,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House
Briefing Room to declare that “we are officially putting
Iran on notice,” he drew a red line for President Trump.
In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed.
His credibility
is now on the line.
And what
triggered this virtual ultimatum?
Iran-backed
Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship, and
Tehran tested a missile, undermining “security,
prosperity and stability throughout the Middle East,”
placing “American lives at risk.”
But how so?
The Saudis have
been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their
country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled
to immunity from retaliation in wars they start?
Where is the
evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the
Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war
his war?
As for the
Iranian missile test, a 2015 U.N. resolution “called
upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did
not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles,
which Tehran insists this was.
Is the United
States making new demands on Iran not written into the
nuclear treaty or international law – to provoke a
confrontation?
Did Flynn
coordinate with our allies about this warning of
possible military action against Iran? Is NATO obligated
to join any action we might take?
Or are we going
to carry out any retaliation alone, as our NATO allies
observe, while the Israelis, Gulf Arabs, Saudis and the
Beltway War Party, which wishes to be rid of Trump,
cheer him on?
Bibi Netanyahu
hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a
flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring,
“Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom,
besides us?
The Saudi king
spoke with Trump Sunday. Did he persuade the president
to get America more engaged against Iran?
Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is among those
delighted with the White House warning:
“No longer will
Iran be given a pass for its repeated ballistic missile
violations, continued support of terrorism, human rights
abuses and other hostile activities that threaten
international peace and security.”
The problem
with making a threat public – Iran is “on notice” – is
that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump,
to back away.
Tehran seems
almost obliged to defy it, especially the demand that it
cease testing conventional missiles for its own defense.
This U.S.
threat will surely strengthen those Iranians opposed to
the nuclear deal and who wish to see its architects,
President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif, thrown out in this year’s elections.
If Rex
Tillerson is not to become a wartime secretary of state
like Colin Powell or Dean Rusk, he is going to have to
speak to the Iranians, not with defiant declarations,
but in a diplomatic dialogue.
Tillerson, of
course, is on record as saying the Chinese should be
blocked from visiting the half-dozen fortified islets
they have built on rocks and reefs in the South China
Sea.
A prediction:
The Chinese will not be departing from their islands,
and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against
testing their missiles.
Wednesday’s
White House statement makes a collision with Iran almost
unavoidable, and a war with Iran quite possible.
Why did Trump
and Flynn feel the need to do this now?
There is an
awful lot already on the foreign-policy plate of the new
president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in
Ukraine are firing artillery again, and North Korea’s
nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real,
has yet to be addressed.
High among the
reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding
that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an
unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq.
Along with the
15-year war in Afghanistan and our wars in Libya, Syria
and Yemen, our 21st-century U.S. Mideast wars have cost
us trillions of dollars and thousands of dead. And they
have produced a harvest of hatred of America that was
exploited by al-Qaida and ISIS to recruit jihadists to
murder and massacre Westerners.
Osama’s bin
Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the
twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad
America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a
reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold
War global primacy.
Unlike the
other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.
It was thought
he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a
saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq
and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner
Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
When Barack
Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of
chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad
appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that his
countrymen wanted no part of the war that his military
action might bring on.
President Obama
backed down – in humiliation.
Neither the
Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to
back away, especially now that the president has made
the threat public.
Patrick J.
Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest
Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create
the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and
cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com .
The views
expressed in this article are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Information Clearing House. |
