Ryan ChartrandDefense Secretary Robert Gates made the case that Iran is directly linked to the improvised explosive devices used by some Iraqi insurgents at a NATO security conference in Sevilla, Spain last week. Gates told reporters that there is a “pretty good” chance that the serial numbers on some of these devices prove that Iran is supplying weapons or technology to insurgent fighters in Iraq. He made these allegations without releasing any concrete evidence to support them.
Ideally, the American public should be able to trust the claims and intelligence used by the U.S. military and the president to justify going to war. Unfortunately, this president is far from ideal. Also last week, the Pentagon’s Inspector General released a new report examining the Pentagon’s quest for intelligence connecting Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime and al-Qaida in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002. This report found that, while the actions of those gathering this intelligence were not illegal, that the Pentagon had developed intelligence that was inconsistent with the findings of the intelligence community as a whole. In an attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the events of Sept. 11, the Pentagon, under pressure from the Bush administration, released intelligence that implied a direct connection between them. The Senate Armed Services Committee debated this report last week, with committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., calling it a “devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities.”
Now, this administration’s wishes regarding Iran have been clear for some time. War with Iran has long been seen within the Bush administration as the “next step” after the Iraq war. Gates’ allegations – along with which he provided no details, evidence, or proof – are another attempt to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran. This presentation of evidence is eerily similar to that of the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, which four years later is being called highly dubious. Ironically, the United States is accusing Iran of supporting Shiite extremist groups in Iraq, many of which are supportive themselves of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, considered a U.S. ally in the Iraq war.
It is painfully obvious what the United States is attempting to do. Instead of focusing on Iran’s development of nuclear weapons or the threat it poses to Israel, the U.S. is painting Iran as an ally to sectarian militias currently operating within Iraq. This is in an effort to build evidence for an attack on Iran under the current Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. The Bush administration knows that any attempt to gain new authorization for military action in Iran is dead on arrival; Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Califronia, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, and a host of other Democratic leaders in Congress have all vowed that they will not allow a request from the Bush administration to gain approval. Although it is obvious that public opinion means little to the Bush Administration when it come to foreign policy, the American public also strongly disapproves of military strikes against Iran, with a 68 percent disapproval rating for any attacks in a Jan. 21 CNN poll.
While the statements from Pelosi and Reid are positive signs, Congress must take specific steps to investigate the Bush administration’s claims of ties between Iran and sectarian militias in Iraq. An attack on Iran, a country with a huge standing army and strategic control over much of the Middle East’s oil supplies, would make the total, unmitigated disaster that is the current Iraq conflict look like a lovely spring picnic. It is the responsibility of this Congress to stop this new grab for military authorization from the Bush administration. The results of a war with Iran would be catastrophic.
Zach Austin is a political science junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.