Iran – changes in U.S. Military Leadership

BLOG POSTING: Alarmist on Iran, except ….

Comments by Tom Barnett regarding his article in Esquire magazine, The Man Between War and Peace (http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon), in context with the article in the Washington Post: U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran, By Ann Scott Tyson, , April 26, 2008; Page A07

So, yes, I guess my piece in Esquire was as alarmist as some claimed, except:
-> I said Fallon could be fired and he was.
-> I said someone more pliable would be found, and he was.
-> I said Fallon’s firing could signal the ramp up on Iran and we get both Petraeus and Crocker saying that enemy #1 in Iraq is Iran.
-> And as soon as Petraeus is named, we get the obviously released story about the preparations for military strikes.
We are told by Gates and others that “this is all passed” and that the only ones who argue it isn’t are people who unduly alarm the public.
But the more open this latest ramp-up becomes, the harder it gets to deny. Those who simply mouth the Bush line will tell us again that this is all silly.
But the underlying truths remain: Bush has made his promises to friends in the region and Cheney believes it must be done on his watch.

As I mentioned in the Mission Accomplished posting, three options plus the choice of using soft or hard (smart) power:

1. Maintain/sustain the current situation?
2. Incremental change?¼br /> 3. Radical/Transformation Change?