Iran Analysis: Hyping the War Chatter --- US Military Chief Mike Mullen Speaks

So Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is on the Sunday talk show Meet the Press. Inevitably, after the discussion of the Wikileaks "War Diaries" and US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, host David Gregory seizes on the Iran war chatter:

MR. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is worse?

Iran Analysis: More War, No Facts, Blah Blah (Chapter 23)
Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.

ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome.

And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.

MR. GREGORY: But leaders have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.

MR. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year?

ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood.

MR. GREGORY: There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case?

ADM. MULLEN: I think that's the case.

MR. GREGORY: There aren't very many good options.

ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't--it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact.

MR. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?



ADM. MULLEN: We do.

Let's take it as read that Gregory, whose nose for news is the hysterical, provocative, and over-stated, would never think of asking if Iran is actually that close to nuclear military capability and certain would not countenance the possibility that Tehran may not be pursuing such an outcome.

To give Mullen credit, he tries to resist the Choice of the Absurd --- War or Iran's Nuclear Bomb? --- by calling both unacceptable. But because US Government policy relies precisely at that point on holding up the possibility of the ultimate Iranian threat, he can't escape Gregory's simple trap.

So the commander has not only to confirm, "The military actions have been on the table and remain on the table," but has to play Gregory's hyped-up game, "It's an important option."

And by the end of the interview, Gregory has his victory --- no talk left of diplomacy, no shred of the possibility of a political resolution (even though the US and Iran are closer to talks on uranium enrichment than they have been since last autumn), not even the standard recourse of sanctions. Nothing is left but "The Military Has a Plan".

You can guess the resulting headlines racing from country to country. Within minutes, Associated Press was putting out a few choice extracts, and minutes after that, Agence France Presse went even further by tacking on an exaggerated banner, "US Military Chief Admits to Iran Attack Plan". (There is no surprise admission here --- militaries always have attack plans. That's what they do as militaries.) Al Jazeera followed, "US Has 'Plan to Attack Iran'".

And minutes after that, guess what country's state media picked up and ran --- in the inevitable mirror image of US rhetoric about Iran --- with the imminent American threat? Press TV: "Mullen: US Has Plans to Attack Iran".