The Fallon flap
All of a sudden, the prospect of a U.S. attack on Iran is making headlines again.
An Esquireprofile of CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon — the man who oversees pretty much everything the U.S. military does in the Middle East, and a skeptic of military action against Iran — includes this eyebrow-raising paragraph:
…well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if
Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring,
maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House
considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean
that the president and vice-president intend to take military action
against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander
standing in their way.
Constant readers will recall that Fallon supposedly made it known privately when he took over CENTCOM a year ago that he would not allow an attack on Iran wouldn't happen on his watch. The article doesn't refer to that report, but does seem to reinforce it.
Fallon is already distancing himself from the story, even though he obviously granted the writer considerable access and the tone of the piece is fairly glowing. For whatever it's worth, the writer is Thomas P.M. Barnett, a military strategist who — judging from this blog entry of his — is highly sympathetic to the Bush Doctrine, but also believes an attack on Iran at this time would be lunacy. Take it for whatever it's worth.
For a scenario that doesn't necessarily involve an attack on Iran, but would still send oil shooting up to $150, check out this special report from Byron King of Outstanding Investments.