Unconfirmed report on CommonDreams that the White House wanted to put three carriers in the Persian Gulf in early April by having the Nimitz get there early.
Supposedly Admiral Fallon refused to do this, which is curious and problematic in itself.
On the one hand putting three carriers in the gulf is tantamount to a declaration of war, on the other hand CENTCOM commander does not make policy. The story implies Fallon was asked to request the carrier to provide cover and refused to do so, which is slightly plausible.
Quite weird, and quite worrying in view of Cheney's recent bluster and today's reports claiming Iran has rapidly and successfully expanded its enrichment capacity, I am bothered again.
But, hey that is almost 4 weeks of not worrying about crazy f*$%cks randomly starting a war...
Do you suppose one of his "options" would be a coup d'etat? Or some lesser form of revolt? It is hard to imagine a benign meaning to what he said.
Maybe Fallon just meant he'd resign if ordered to attack Iran? I would think that would be part of being a professional.
Caveat: the report is anonymous and unconfirmed, so this is speculative
I don't think a coup d'etat is likely, but there have been reports in Europe of possible mass resignation of general staff - that would seem a likelier course - "outing" any such plan would also scupper it, also at the cost of a career or few.
In extreme cases the local commander could refuse to pass on an order and he could order forces to stand down or withdraw rather than pass on a presidential order. That'd be a court-martial offence, but in the circumstances not maybe one that'd go to trial.
Something is still not adding up - I'm worried again that the policy level will either try a "hail mary" move to change the ground in the Middle East, or they may decide they have nothing to lose and "do the right thing" of eliminating what they consider possible future threats, pre-emptively.