Panetta took over as defense chief July 1, and already is sounding a very different note from his predecessor, Robert Gates, who played down the chances of a military confrontation with the Islamic Republic.
Panetta didn’t specifically threaten war. He was silent about that. But the senior US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, changed his rhetoric dramatically to accuse Iran of committing an act of war that could demand an American response if Iran did not stop.
US troops ended their combat missions in Iraq last August and suffered few casualties after that—until early June when rockets were fired into US bases and convoys were ambushed, generating a surge in casualties. The US says the attacks are being carried out by three Iraqi militias that are armed by Iran to kill Americans.
“We are very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq,” Panetta said Monday while visiting with US troops in Iraq. “In June, we lost a hell of a lot of Americans as a result of those attacks.” He pledged “to do what we have to do unilaterally to be able to go after those threats.”
But while Panetta left the threat to hit Iran implied but unspoken, Colin Kahl, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East who was accompanying Panetta, made no mention of anything so extreme. Asked what unilateral measures the US Army could take, Kahl listed such measures as stepping up security and patrolling around and improving the protection of US bases.
Those measures are not normally conceived of as “unilateral,” however.
In Baghdad, Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Danaifar rejected Panetta’s accusations and counter-charged that Washington was just trying to justify keeping its troops in Iraq beyond the December 31 exit deadline. “I believe the Americans are trying to make excuses, create Iranophobia and cause doubt and anxiety among Iraqi officials and society,” he said. “The Americans are trying to suggest that if they leave Iraq, Iraq will be threatened by Iran.” But Panetta didn’t say that; he said Americans, not Iraqis, were threatened by Iran.
Panetta was actually the third American official to implicate Iran in American deaths in recent days. First, US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said the United States had “forensic” evidence that equipment made in Iran was being used by those killing Americans. A few days later, Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has usually been very mild in his remarks about Iran, also accused the Islamic Republic of being behind US deaths in the past month.
Mullen made an important but little noticed change in the nature of the US charges. Asked if the senior leadership in Iran knew about the military aid to the Iraqi militias, Mullen said: “I would say they know about it.”
Mullen’s predecessors had avoided pinning blame on Iran’s top leadership. They said the aid was coming from the Pasdaran and they did not know if anyone above the Pasdar leadership knew what was going on.
Those comments had a purpose. They avoided implicating the Iranian state and blaming it for acts of war against the United States. When the United States accuses a foreign state of acts of war, it has to expect demands from within the United States for a military response.
Mullen said the Iranian aid for Iraqi militias was curtailed in 2008 and had only recently been stepped up again.
A number of US officials have said Iran wishes to take credit after the American withdrawal for driving the Americans out of Iraq. But that will be very hard to do after Iran has publicly denied any role in the attacks on Americans.
Meanwhile, a group of Sunni clerics saw exactly the reverse goal for Iran. It said Iran was trying to keep American troops in Iraq because that would help Tehran boost its influence inside Iraq.
The Association of Muslims Scholars issued a statement last Thursday that condemned the visit to Baghdad last week of Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.
“This visit has undeclared goals,” the statement said, “foremost being to raise fears in the region of Iranian infiltration in order to cling to the continuation of the US presence in Iraq. This presence gave Iran historic opportunities to spread its influence in Iraq and the region. Iran is today well aware that the exit of the occupation forces from Iraq at this time will cause it to lose many opportunities and will weaken its influence to a great extent. Therefore, Iran is most keen on maintaining this [American] presence.”