[Peace] Sen. Murphy: Flynn missile test - Houthi link = Reckless Slide To War with Iran

[Robert Naiman]

[...]
Making matters worse this week, instead of trying to heal the wounds
created by Friday’s executive order, Trump’s new National Security Advisor,
Michael Flynn, *doubled down on the path to conflict*. Though Trump’s
executive order was the proximate cause of the ballistic missile launch,
that doesn’t excuse it. Flynn appropriately warned Iran that the test would
be met with consequences from the United States and the international
community. Though the wording of “putting Iran on notice” was a bit odd, a
strong message in the wake of the tests was warranted.

*What was exceptional was that Flynn included in the statement a warning to
Iran that had nothing to do with the missile tests*. “These are just the
latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi
forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi
vessels and threatened United States and allied vessels transiting the Red
Sea,” he said. *Flynn brought the Houthis into the statement in order to
warn the Iranians that if the Houthis continued to attack Saudi Arabia, we
would consider it a threat to us commensurate to the firing of the
ballistic missiles. This is an absurd equivalence argument, and it could
lead us into a war that no American is looking for.*

Houthi rebels inside Yemen have been at war for two years with Saudi-backed
forces that historically have controlled the country’s government. The
Houthis are undoubtedly backed by Iran, but *they are not a pure Iranian
proxy* in the way, for instance, that Hezbollah is. The Houthis’ grievances
against the ousted Yemeni government were organic, and though Iran helps to
fund the rebels, *they do not command nor control them*.
[...]

[...]
*What was so dangerous about Flynn’s statement was that he is now
suggesting that Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia could lead to war between
the United States and Iran. This makes no sense.*
[...]

[...]

Observed in conjunction with Flynn’s statement this week, it makes clear *the
U.S. is doubling down on our involvement in the Yemen civil war. This would
be madness, and Democrats and Republicans who have any influence with the
administration need to beg Trump and his team to back off these escalatory
moves*.

The United States should target extremist groups in Yemen, *which are
growing stronger largely because of the bombing campaign by Saudi Arabia*.
But *we should stay the hell out of the civil war there*. I have long
argued that we should cease helping Saudi Arabia in its bombing campaign,
but *we should not get any more involved in a war between two rival ethnic
groups in Yemen when who wins that fight has no meaningful effect on U.S.
national security*. Yes, it matters to Saudi Arabia who wins that fight,
but the transitive property doesn’t apply to foreign relations – not
everything that matters to our friends automatically matters to us.

American presidents are supposed to keep us out of war. What is so hard to
fathom about the first few weeks of the Trump administration is that *every
step they have taken seems to get us closer and closer to a conflict with
Iran*. I hope that is not their goal. I hope that it’s simply a series of
mistakes. If it’s the latter, Trump should correct his course right now, or
the blood and treasure wasted in an unnecessary conflict with Iran will be
entirely of his own making.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5893ce89e4b02bbb1816b8d3
?timestamp=1486129734543



*A Reckless Slide Toward War with Iran*

Since the inauguration, the White House has taken several ham-handed
escalatory steps that bring into question whether Trump and his most
radical advisors are begging for war with Iran. This would be a disaster of
epic scale, perhaps eclipsing the nightmare of the Iraq War. Republicans
and Democrats need to start viewing President Trump’s actions and words as
a possible accidental or intentional prelude to major conflict, and taking
steps to counter this dangerous slide to war.

The descent began with last Friday’s executive order barring Iranian
citizens from entering the United States. Potentially the most dangerous
result of the order was to empower the most hardline clerics in
Iran—threatening not just our own security, but our ally Israel’s as well.

The danger of including Iran comes in the message it sends to Iranians and
its potential to tip the political balance inside Iran to forces that are
deeply antithetical to the United States and Israel – the kind of people
who actually could start World War III.

The Iranian people, especially the growing numbers of young people in the
country, do not hate the United States. They regularly get fed
anti-American garbage by the regime, but the young men and women who will
inherit Iran largely admire America. This tilt toward the West is what
caused the relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani to be elected President. It
is also what brought Iran to the negotiating table, resulting in the
landmark nuclear agreement committing Iran to give up its pathway to a
nuclear weapon.

Rouhani said that the Muslim ban was a “great gift to extremists.” He meant
groups like ISIS, but he might have also have been referring to extremist
political groups in his own country. Why? Because the hardliners in Tehran
who want to tear up the nuclear agreement, make Iran a nuclear weapons
power, and create havoc in the Middle East will use the Muslim ban as
evidence that America does indeed hate Iran.

We watched on Sunday as the hardliners showed off their new strengthened
position. The ballistic missile test was a signal that Rouhani is losing
power and the anti-Western conservatives are ascendant. This edges us
closer to war, but it also endangers our allies in the region, most notably
Israel. By and large, Rouhani has dispatched the hateful anti-Israel speech
that was a regular part of his predecessor’s rhetorical repertoire. If
Rouhani goes, so does any chance at Iranian moderation on Israel.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to view Tehran as a serious
adversary. The government has long been a sponsor of terrorists and radical
groups in the Middle East. Most recently, the Iranian government bears
responsibility for some of the worst carnage in Syria.

But often lost in the debate in the United States is that Iran has not been
associated with direct threats against our country. Though Trump referenced
9/11 several times in rolling out his executive order, not one of the
hijackers or plotters was from Iran (wildly, none of the 4 countries of
origin of the 9/11 perpetrators are on the list). Iran’s government is full
of bad actors, and that’s why we have levied sanctions against their
government for its support of terrorism in the Middle East. But Trump
claimed the Muslim ban was about protecting against terrorist threats
against the United States – and there’s no evidence to suggest that vetted
Iranian immigrants pose a threat to Americans.

Making matters worse this week, instead of trying to heal the wounds
created by Friday’s executive order, Trump’s new National Security Advisor,
Michael Flynn, doubled down on the path to conflict. Though Trump’s
executive order was the proximate cause of the ballistic missile launch,
that doesn’t excuse it. Flynn appropriately warned Iran that the test would
be met with consequences from the United States and the international
community. Though the wording of “putting Iran on notice” was a bit odd, a
strong message in the wake of the tests was warranted.

What was exceptional was that Flynn included in the statement a warning to
Iran that had nothing to do with the missile tests. “These are just the
latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi
forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi
vessels and threatened United States and allied vessels transiting the Red
Sea,” he said. Flynn brought the Houthis into the statement in order to
warn the Iranians that if the Houthis continued to attack Saudi Arabia, we
would consider it a threat to us commensurate to the firing of the
ballistic missiles. This is an absurd equivalence argument, and it could
lead us into a war that no American is looking for.

Houthi rebels inside Yemen have been at war for two years with Saudi-backed
forces that historically have controlled the country’s government. The
Houthis are undoubtedly backed by Iran, but they are not a pure Iranian
proxy in the way, for instance, that Hezbollah is. The Houthis’ grievances
against the ousted Yemeni government were organic, and though Iran helps to
fund the rebels, they do not command nor control them.

You wouldn’t know this by listening to his statement, but the United States
does not have a security treaty with Saudi Arabia. They are our ally, but
they fight their own battles. They are waging war against the Houthis with
a reckless bombing campaign (supported by the U.S.) that has killed
thousands and thousands of civilians. Some by accident. Some on purpose.
The Houthis have fought back – and they too are responsible for scores of
civilian deaths.

What was so dangerous about Flynn’s statement was that he is now suggesting
that Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia could lead to war between the United
States and Iran. This makes no sense.

And it squares with other actions that Trump has authorized in the early
days of this administration. Last week, an American Navy Seal and countless
Yemeni civilians were killed in a special operations mission against Al
Qaeda inside Yemen. It was the first counter-terrorism operation authorized
by Trump, and it went very, very badly. According to military sources, it
was approved “without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate
backup preparations.”

This showed that Trump is willing to escalate U.S. military activity in
Yemen in dangerous ways. Observed in conjunction with Flynn’s statement
this week, it makes clear the U.S. is doubling down on our involvement in
the Yemen civil war. This would be madness, and Democrats and Republicans
who have any influence with the administration need to beg Trump and his
team to back off these escalatory moves.

The United States should target extremist groups in Yemen, which are
growing stronger largely because of the bombing campaign by Saudi Arabia.
But we should stay the hell out of the civil war there. I have long argued
that we should cease helping Saudi Arabia in its bombing campaign, but we
should not get any more involved in a war between two rival ethnic groups
in Yemen when who wins that fight has no meaningful effect on U.S. national
security. Yes, it matters to Saudi Arabia who wins that fight, but the
transitive property doesn’t apply to foreign relations – not everything
that matters to our friends automatically matters to us.

American presidents are supposed to keep us out of war. What is so hard to
fathom about the first few weeks of the Trump administration is that every
step they have taken seems to get us closer and closer to a conflict with
Iran. I hope that is not their goal. I hope that it’s simply a series of
mistakes. If it’s the latter, Trump should correct his course right now, or
the blood and treasure wasted in an unnecessary conflict with Iran will be
entirely of his own making.

*Following President Trump’s executive order banning citizens of seven
majority-Muslim countries from traveling to the U.S., Murphy published **“**How
Trump Just Made America Less Safe
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5888fe22e4b0628ad613ddb2?timestamp=1486131189889>.”*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20170203/7bc55875/attachment-0001.html>