Wednesday, January 31, 2007
can you search for what's not lost:
That piece about Fallon's hearing yesterday -- very shrill! -- is now up at the Guardian's website. We had some space constraints and so some stuff about Iran fell out, but the Guardian folks very generously consented to let me post that here. So behold! The Missing Paragraph!
On Iran, Fallon was similarly inscrutable. Many analysts have speculated that the first-ever appointment of a Navy officer to head Central Command indicates a new, bellicose focus on the Persian Gulf -- meaning Iran. In recent weeks, Bush's position toward Iran has hardened significantly, with U.S. troops raiding an Iranian diplomatic office in Iraqi Kurdistan and Bush promising to "respond firmly" to Iranian-sponsored attacks on Americans in Iraq. Fallon said merely that the Iranians "have not been helpful to date" in Iraq. He pledged himself unsure of Iranian intentions in the Gulf, but said he believed Iran was trying to deny the U.S. access to the Strait of Hormuz. Although many journalists in the room had at this point started flipping through the sports pages out of boredom, Fallon had perhaps inadvertently laid out a prospective casus belli: the strait is the gateway to the Persian Gulf, and denial of U.S. access to it would mean a massive disruption of the U.S. oil supply. But when Senator John Warner asked if Fallon was interested in "battleship diplomacy" against Iran, he said he found it "most appealing, because we've got plenty to do right now with active combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
--Spencer Ackerman
a new bellicose focus?
Blogger Pooh | 2:33 PM

So, what, this is The Carter Doctrine on steroids? "Deny us our oil, we fuck you up but good!"
Blogger James F. Elliott | 3:55 PM