« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Tony Snow: Iran? What's That?
It's kind of funny: President Bush announces in his speech on the surge that he's moving a second naval carrier group to the Persian Gulf just after he finishes talking about the malfeasance of Iran. Everyone understands that this movement is to direct a show of strength at Iran. Everyone, that is, except White House spokesman Tony Snow, who told reporters that the new deployment has... nothing to do with Iran!
The transcript:
Q Can I also ask you about Iran, as well? Do you have any response to the comments from Iran's supreme leader, talking about attacking interests around the world --MR. SNOW: I believe the Ayatollah was referring to, if the United States attacked -- let's see, I have said it, the Secretary of Defense has said it, the President has said it: We're not invading Iran. So I think this is -- he's spinning a hypothetical about something that is not contemplated.
Q Why did he have to say it?
MR. SNOW: Why did he have to say it?
Q No, why do you have to say it?
MR. SNOW: Because you guys kept trying to report that we were doing it, and we kept saying, no, we're not.
Q -- forces in your backyard, aircraft carriers, missiles, submarines?
MR. SNOW: Yes. That's correct.
Q Does that give you a little pause --
MR. SNOW: I don't think so.
Q -- as an American?
MR. SNOW: It doesn't give me pause. It gives me reassurance to know that we were able to deploy people.
Q You don't think we should be worried about that?
MR. SNOW: No.
Q Why?
MR. SNOW: Because we quite often deploy carrier task forces all around the world.
Q Two task forces in their backyards?
MR. SNOW: I don't believe it's their backyard. I believe it is the ocean that also encompasses a whole series of other nations. It is not as if they are parking outside of Iranian ports. As a matter of fact, as you know, the area of passage through the Straight of Hormuz is quite narrow -- 21 miles -- and we are talking about deploying through an area where -- that includes a number of key allies, including the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and others.
This blatant insult to the nation's intelligence would be more plausible had Defense Secretary Bob Gates not himself put the naval deployment in the context of Iran at a NATO summit last month:
Q: Mr. Secretary David Cloud with the New York Times.Just to follow up on Bob's question: there have been calls by the Iraq Study Group and others for more diplomatic engagement with Iran. One of the thrusts of the administration's new Iraq strategy appears to be more confrontation with Iran. You've talked about going after Iranian networks inside Iraq; the Patriot deployments, the carrier deployments, do seem to be aimed, in part at least, at Iran. Is that the case and can you explain the thinking behind that?
Gates: Well I had, as you probably remember, I co-chaired a council on foreign relations study on the United States relations with Iran in 2004 with Dr. Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, and our conclusion at that time was that it would be useful for the United States to engage with Iran and it appeared to be promising because the Iranians clearly were concerned by the presence of American troops on both their eastern and western borders and there was some evidence they were actually doing some things to be helpful inside Iraq. None of those conditions apply any longer.
The Iranians clearly believe that we're tied down in Iraq; that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways. They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point. In addition, they have supported Hezbollah's efforts to create a new conflict in Lebanon and so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems, then there might be opportunities for engagement. Secretary Rice already has said that she would sit down any time, any place with her counterpart from Iran if they would commit not to enrich uranium.
So the opportunity is there for engagement, but I would say that the initiative needs to rest with the Iranians and we are simply trying to communicate to the region that we're going to be there for a long time.





Join the Navy and see the world. That's all the good ole boys are doing. Making sure our sailors get to see how narrow the straits of Hormuz are!
February 8, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not their backyard, it's the ocean. Backyards typically have grass, and swingsets, and maybe a puppy. You can't even fit an aircraft carrier task group in most people's backyards. Silly reporters.
It's not as if they were parking outside Iranian ports. Of course not. Blocking a port would be an act of war, which we haven't started yet. And besides, with aircraft carriers, you need room to get the jets up to speed before they start their bombing runs. Silly reporters.
February 8, 2007 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
youTube thinks C-Span cares about copyrights (and has no concept of the term 'fair use'. sheesh!
February 8, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tony Snow: "We're not invading Iran."
Pay attention to how he just worded that.
February 8, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
idle musing while pondering the latest...is the resumption of Israeli-Lebanese border clashes (which will, of course, involve Hezbollah) a prelude to Israeli action against Iran?
Maybe the arrival on station of the add'l U.S. carrier task force is a signal for the Iran war to begin, with the first strike delivered by Israeli missiles armed with nukes. Is that why Rice, Cheney, et al. keep saying 'all options are 'on the table''?
Iran (what's left of it) retaliates against U.S. forces in the area, especially Iraq, but hesitates against Israel, not sure who their attacker was? This uncertainty would also delay any anti-Israeli stance being taken by the other 'Moslem' nations in the area.
Israel could always exp;ain their pre-emptive action later with the notion of claiming Iran was urging more Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon.
February 8, 2007 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me. Am I the only one who sees that this administration is concentrating more on the Scooter Libby trial than our nations domestic and foreign policy? And then there is Tony Snow...
February 8, 2007 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel not the US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. US carriers and other supports will protect the Straits and control the damage. Check out Bustardblog, which argues that the impending Israeli attack is the real reason behind the surge. That's why Lieberman is so enthusiastic about the escalation. Gates is telling the truth. We won't attack Iran. Our proxy will. Soon. Before the 08 election cycle heats up.
February 9, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel, not the US, will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. US carriers and other supports are in place to protect the Straits and control the damage. Check out Bustardblog, which argues that the impending Israeli attack is the real reason behind the surge. That's also why Lieberman is so enthusiastic about the escalation. Gates is telling the truth. We won't attack Iran. Our proxy will. Soon. Before the 08 election cycle heats up.
February 9, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee,
It is my observation that Israel's invasion into Lebbonon was more about the 15,000 missles lauched from Lebbonon's dirt only to fall on Israel's dirt in the last coupla years. Add in that U.N. Peace Keeping detail was doing more to facilate the shelling . . .
Where does your fascination with bashing Israel come from?
The American White House is stupid enough to decide to attack Iran without being the puppets of some world-wide Zionist origanization. The "Protocols of Zion" were a Russian forgery/invention.
February 9, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't there 3 carriers in play ? The Eisenhour Stennis and Ronald Reagan (enroute) ?
February 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink