Over at Contentions, Max Boot scolds Admiral Fallon for sending “mixed messages” to Iran:
Whatever you think about the desirability of a preemptive strike, one thing is clear: it would be the height of foolishness for the United States to take that option off the table. Only if the mullahs think they face a serious military threat are they likely to slow down their quest for the bomb. Thus it was puzzling to see Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, telling the Financial Times that, as the headline had it, “U.S. strike on Iran ‘not being prepared.'” The content of the article was a bit more complex: while Fallon was quoted as saying that a strike is not “in the offing,” he continued, “That said, we have to make sure there is no mistake on the part of the Iranians about our resolve in tending to business in the region.” The Iranians can be forgiven for having grave doubts about U.S. resolve, however, when the senior U.S. military figure in the region is going out of his way to assure them that their threatening actions will not result in American military action.
This is the big question–does ratcheting up the rhetoric increase the likelihood of a favorable diplomatic compromise, or does it merely increase the likelihood of a military confrontation? I’m inclined to agree with Boot, the more credible the threat of violence, the more likely Iran is to seek a face-saving compromise. Still, the American system of government, unlike that in Iran, is transparent–our enemies know full well that it is the civilian leadership, i.e. Bush and Cheney, which will decide whether or not to launch a strike. And they also know full well that Fallon is being less than honest. Anyone who believes that the Pentagon isn’t constantly refining plans for an immediate strike on Iran, North Korea, and a host of other countries–Pakistan included–is terribly naive. And as irrational as the Iranians may be, there’s no reason to think that they’re naive.
