|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Middle
East : Iran
At White House press conference, Bush escalates war threats
against Iran
By Joe Kay
15 February 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
At a White House press conference Wednesday morning, President
George Bush laid out the administrations 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.
Bushs 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 Irans 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.
Bushs press conference was intended to shore up the administrations
war propaganda against Iran in the aftermath of Paces statement.
Answering a question about his reaction to Paces 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 didnt know, and what
matters is that [the weapons are] there. Whats worse, that
the government knew or the government didnt 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 troopsI mean,
to the people who are commandersthat well 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, Were
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 Iranno, were
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 Iraqspecifically about WMDthat 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 were 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, were
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 countrys
nuclear weapons program.
In defending his Iraq policy, Bush alluded to the dishonest
and hypocritical character of the Democratic Partys opposition.
The Democrats are posing as critics of the war while assuring
the US ruling elite that, whatever tactical differences they may
have with Bushs 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
administrations 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 policyincluding the former
Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Liebermanwas
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 months
vote on the war spending bill.
See Also:
US "diplomacy" on Iran: thuggery
and threats of war
[15 February 2007]
Stop the US war drive against Iran!
[14 February 2007]
Bush administration concocts a dossier
for war against Iran
[13 February 2007]
The Bush administrations economic
war on Iran
[12 February 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |