In early September, during major protests in Iraq’s Shi’ite southeast, a  group fired three mortar shells into the Green Zone of Baghdad. The  shells landed in an empty lot, doing no damage and causing no casualties. Months later, it appears to be a much bigger story. 
 That’s because the Wall Street Journal is reporting that in the  immediate aftermath, John Bolton and his National Security Council were  encouraging a “forceful” US response. In the course of this, Bolton’s team asked the Pentagon to provide President Trump with “military options” to attack Iran.
 It appears not to have taken long to go from Shi’ite protests and  pinning the mortar fire on a Shi’ite militia, one that is officially  part of the Iraqi government, to calls to attack Iran. That’s because US  officials, particularly hawks, accuse Shi’ite militias anywhere in the  world of being Iranian as a matter of course. In this case, it could’ve  easily escalated into a US military attack on Iran. 
 Both the State Department and Pentagon were taken aback by the request,  with one former official calling it “mind-boggling how cavalier they  were about hitting Iran.” Bolton has made a career out of calls to  attack Iran and others, of course, and likely considered this par for  the course. 
 The Pentagon is confirmed to have drawn up the options for attacking  Iran, though officials say it is unclear if the options have yet been  passed along to President Trump himself, or are still working their way  through the National Security Council.
 It seems likely it’s a later, though, as National Security Council  spokesman Garrett Marquis presented the mortar shells as an attempt to  attack the US Embassy in Baghdad, and said they are considering a “full  range of options to preserve their safety and our interests.” This is  meant to suggest that months after the “attack,” which again did no  damage and hit nothing, attacking a country at best tangentially related  to the matter remains on the table as far as Bolton’s council are  concerned. 
 What will happen remains to be seen, but resistance to that sort of an  unprovoked US attack may be softening within the administration. James  Mattis is gone, and it’s not clear the interim Pentagon leadership has  anywhere near as much sway or inclination toward being the voice of  reason. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made targeting Iran the  centerpiece of his Middle East tour as well, and has been known to lean  hawkish on Iran. 
White House Asked Pentagon to Provide Military Option to Attack Iran
State Dept, Pentagon 'concerned' by request 
			Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.
			Join the Discussion!
We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.
For more details, please see our Comment Policy.
    ×
    
      
    
  


