U.S. Not Planning Iran War

The defense secretary Gates Says U.S. Not Planning Iran War


At a news conference on Thursday 1St February 2007 Defence Secretary Gates said that the decision announced in January to send a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region does not mean the United States is planning for a war with Iran. He said the purpose was to underscore to U.S. allies as well as potential adversaries that the Gulf is a vital interest to the United States. "Nobody is planning, we are not planning for a war with Iran," Gates said. He then went on to say that the United States' main aim with regard to Iranian influence inside Iraq is to counter what he called networks providing explosives used to make roadside bombs that are powerful enough to destroy a U.S. tank. "Because we are acting against the Iranians' activities in Iraq, it has given rise to some of these talks" of U.S. intentions to attack Iran, he said, adding that there is no such plan. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the same conference said that over the past month or so, raids against those bomb-supplying networks had netted two Iranians. Secretary Gates also said that it was too soon to say with a high degree of confidence whether Iranians were involved in the ambush in Karbala, in southern Iraq, that left five American soldiers dead. U.S. officials have said in recent days that they are investigating possible Iranian links. "The information that I've seen is ambiguous," he said.
Gates then said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad were planning to brief reporters on what is known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior administration officials had intervened to delay the briefing in order to assure that the information to be provided is accurate.
Iran has denied accusations it is supplying weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. An official assessment of Iraq by U.S. intelligence agencies has said that Iran was providing lethal support to select Shiite groups but that "outside actors" such as Iran and Syria are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability" in Iraq. Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said the declassified public document "does not adequately reflect" the degree of concern in nearby Sunni nations about Shiite-run Iran's meddling in Iraq. He disputed suggestions that Bush has overemphasized Iran's role.In his Iraq speech to the nation last month, Bush said the U.S. would "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced training and weaponry to our enemies in Iraq," citing Iran and Syria. Critics of Bush's harder line on Iran fall into two camps: those who worry his recent strong talk might lead to a military conflict and those who claim he should have gotten tough earlier. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, for instance, has criticized what he suggests is previous indifference to the Iranian threat. "In order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on the table," Edwards says in a hint at possible military action. The vice presidential nominee in 2004 has called for withdrawing troops from Iraq.For now, time appears to favor Iran, says Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Even if the United States and Iraq's Shiite-led government can bring stability, "Iran must now feel it can outwit the U.S., exploit U.S. unpopularity in many Shiite areas, and has every reason to be opportunistic. "Iran wins to some degree even if it does not exploit the situation. A Shiite-dominated Iraq is going to need Iranian help and support for years to come."