Iran Could Make Gross Misjudgment, Chairman Says

WASHINGTON, March 17, 2012 — Iran­ian lead­ers could make a gross mis­judg­ment of Amer­i­can will and suf­fer the con­se­quences, the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said last night.

Army Gen. Mar­tin E. Dempsey also explained to Char­lie Rose dur­ing a PBS inter­view that while Iran oper­ates on its own inter­nal log­ic, that does­n’t mean Iran­ian lead­ers will be reasonable. 

The chair­man received some crit­i­cism for say­ing the Iran­ian regime was ratio­nal dur­ing recent Capi­tol Hill testimony. 

“Ratio­nal meant to me that there is an evi­dent pat­tern of behav­ior that this regime has fol­lowed since the Islam­ic Rev­o­lu­tion that, first and fore­most, express­es their inten­tion to remain in pow­er and to pre­serve the regime,” he said. “Based on that, there are some things that we know they will respond to. That’s a ratio­nal actor.” 

By that def­i­n­i­tion, he said, for­mer Iraqi leader Sad­dam Hus­sein also was a ratio­nal actor. Yet act­ing with his own log­ic, the Iraqi leader made a gross mis­judg­ment of Amer­i­can will. The Ira­ni­ans may find them­selves in the same boat. “They could get it wrong and suf­fer the con­se­quences,” the chair­man said. 

Amer­i­can and Israeli lead­ers agree that Iran get­ting such a weapon would be an exis­ten­tial threat to Israel and huge­ly desta­bi­liz­ing to the entire Mid­dle East, Dempsey said. 

U.S. and Israeli lead­ers agree the threat exists and only diverge in tim­ing. “We don’t dis­agree in terms of intent,” the chair­man said. “We dis­agree in terms of time.” 

Both U.S. and Israeli lead­ers say they are deter­mined to pre­vent Iran from achiev­ing a nuclear weapon. “All options are on the table. And it’s a mat­ter of time,” the gen­er­al said. 

The cur­rent U.S. strat­e­gy is based on giv­ing eco­nom­ic sanc­tions and diplo­mat­ic pres­sures time to work. The gen­er­al would not go into how much time is avail­able. “It’s time not nec­es­sar­i­ly mea­sured in terms of months or years, but in terms of our abil­i­ty and capa­bil­i­ty to col­lect intel­li­gence, to see if they cross any thresh­olds,” he said. 

An attack on Iran’s nuclear infra­struc­ture would cause many oth­er effects, he not­ed. The Ira­ni­ans could, for exam­ple, try to close the Strait of Hor­muz, through which much of the world’s oil flows. 

Iran also is a play­er in the war in Syr­ia, ship­ping arms to Bashir al-Assad’s regime, Dempsey said. The Unit­ed Nations esti­mates that the regime has killed more than 8,000 Syr­i­ans and dis­placed hun­dreds of thou­sands more. 

Many have asked for an inter­ven­tion to pro­tect the peo­ple of Syr­ia from their own lead­ers, much like the NATO inter­ven­tion that top­pled Libyan dic­ta­tor Moam­mar Ghadafi last year. U.S. mil­i­tary offi­cials con­tin­ue to study the sit­u­a­tion on the ground. 

“Just in terms of geog­ra­phy, size of the coun­try, the demo­graph­ics of the coun­try, the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties of the coun­try, (it’s a) vast­ly dif­fer­ent chal­lenge” than Libya, Dempsey said. 

The oppo­si­tion groups them­selves are frag­ment­ed and there is no clear leader like there was in Libya, the gen­er­al said. And, there is no con­sen­sus in the Unit­ed Nations for action. The Arab League has con­demned Assad and asked him to step down, “but has not asked for any inter­ven­tion,” he said. 

“The Unit­ed States can always act in its own self defense and for its own vital nation­al inter­ests, should those be declared in this case,” he said. “But it’s also very clear that to pro­duce a use­ful, endur­ing out­come, it’s always bet­ter to do that as part of a coalition.” 

The U.S. mil­i­tary has been work­ing on intel­li­gence esti­mates of the sit­u­a­tion in Syr­ia and all the things that would be nec­es­sary in order to take plan­ning to the next lev­el. “But we have not yet planned in detail any par­tic­u­lar mil­i­tary option in Syr­ia,” he said. 

Syr­ia unrest began as a result of the Arab Spring last year when Tunisian and Egypt­ian cit­i­zens rose up against entrenched regimes. Egypt is a pow­er­ful U.S. ally in the region and the mil­i­tary-to-mil­i­tary rela­tion­ship between the coun­tries con­tin­ues, Dempsey said. 

Egypt will become even more impor­tant when the Assad regime in Syr­ia falls, the chair­man said. “When Syr­ia tum­bles, you then have … a Sun­ni major­i­ty gov­ern­ment in Dam­as­cus that kind of com­pletes an arc of Sun­ni Islam and stand­ing off kind of against the Shia world,” the chair­man said. “The point being that when you have this kind of arc of insta­bil­i­ty is prob­a­bly a good way to put it, Egypt becomes a real­ly impor­tant play­er in this. So it’s real­ly impor­tant for us to build – to con­tin­ue to build the rela­tion­ship with the emerg­ing Egypt.” 

In the long-term, Dempsey believes the Arab Spring is a good thing for the world. In the short term it is desta­bi­liz­ing. But it will be good for the world if it remains a dis­cus­sion about the com­pe­ti­tion of ideas, and not a com­pe­ti­tion for pow­er, he said. 

U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →