'This Isn't How You End the Endless War': Trump Weighs Plan to Send 14,000 More US Troops to Middle East

"Trump ran on ending these endless wars. But he's sending more troops to the Middle East, making yet another war there more likely."

by

Jake Johnson

President Donald Trump speaks to U.S. troops during a surprise Thanksgiving day visit at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

The Pentagon is reportedly considering deploying as many as 14,000 additional U.S. troops to the Middle East in order to confront the alleged threat posed by Iran, a move critics said would further expose the hollowness of President Donald Trump's vow to end America's perpetual wars.

"Trump ran on ending these endless wars," tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). "But he's sending more troops to the Middle East, making yet another war there more likely."

"Congress has not authorized any 'Countering Iran' mission."
—Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders

After the Pentagon on Wednesday officially denied a Wall Street Journal report that the Trump administration is weighing a plan to send thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that the Defense Department is in fact considering "changes to our force posture" in the Middle East.

"We're concerned about the threat stream that we're seeing," Rood told lawmakers, referring to Iran. "It is possible that we would need to adjust our force posture, and I think that would be a prudent step based on what we observe."

The Journal, citing anonymous U.S. officials, reported late Wednesday that the Trump administration "is considering a significant expansion of the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East to counter Iran, including dozens more ships, other military hardware, and as many as 14,000 additional troops."

"The deployment could double the number of U.S. military personnel who have been sent to the region since the start of a troop buildup in May," the Journal noted. "President Trump is expected to make a decision on the new deployments as soon as this month."

Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, noted that Congress has not authorized deployment of additional U.S. troops to "confront Iran:

Matt Duss

@mattduss

·

Dec 5

Congress has not authorized any “Countering Iran” mission.

Quote Tweet

Andrew Restuccia

@AndrewRestuccia

· Dec 5

Breaking from @glubold @nancyayoussef The Trump administration is considering a significant expansion of the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East, including as many as 14,000 additional troops to counter Iran, U.S. officials said. https://on.wsj.com/369wRZT

10

86

212

A new deployment of troops to the Middle East would not be the first time Trump has reneged on his pledge to bring American soldiers home.

As Common Dreams reported in October, Trump ordered 1,800 troops and advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia less than 24 hours after tweeting that he is "trying to end the ENDLESS WARS."

In response to the latest possible deployment, anti-war group CodePink tweeted, "This isn't how you 'end the endless war.'"

Undermining Trump-Bolton War Narrative, British General Says No Evidence of 'Increased Threat' From Iran

"Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika said during a briefing on Tuesday that "there's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces." (Photo: U.S. Department of Defense)

A British general threw a wrench into the Trump administration's narrative that Iran is plotting attacks on American troops in the Middle East by telling reporters gathered at the Pentagon Tuesday that "there's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces" in the region.

"We monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in," said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, speaking via video from Baghdad. "If the threat level seems to go up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly."

Apparently eager to squash the general's remarks, the U.S. Central Command issued a statement just hours later disputing Ghika's comments and repeating national security adviser John Bolton's unsubstantiated claim that American intelligence has "identified credible threats" from "Iranian-backed forces" in Iraq and Syria.

UK vs US: Top British general says NO increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Mideast; directly contradicts US claims used to justify regional military buildup.

US military spokesman slams the statement by top UK ally within hours. #Iran
https://t.co/H16P6dRgJN

— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) May 15, 2019

The public dispute came as anti-war voices and foreign policy analysts warned that the United States, led by Bolton, may be attempting to manufacture a false pretext to justify launching a war with Iran.

As Common Dreams reported on Tuesday, U.S. officials are—without any concrete evidence—attempting to blame Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend.

The effort to pin the tanker attacks on Iran came just over a week after Bolton used the planned deployment of an American aircraft carrier and bomber task force to the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran with military action and warn—again, without evidence—of "escalatory indications" from Iran.

According to the New York Times—which reported Monday that President Donald Trump has reviewed a Bolton-crafted plan to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East to threaten Iran—Trump administration officials are having a difficult time convincing America's European allies to join them on their march to war.

As the Times reported Tuesday:

Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington—where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.

One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was "small stuff" and did not merit the military planning being driven by Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.

The anonymous American official's assessment aligns with that of foreign policy observers, who have urgently warned in recent days that the Trump administration is escalating tensions with Iran in an effort to provoke an attack and spark an all-out war.

"John Bolton is methodically setting the stage for war with Iran—forcing Iran into a corner and then readying war plans for when Iran takes the bait," Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement on Monday.

Iran has thus far acted with restraint in the face of U.S. belligerence, urging diplomacy and attempting to restart negotiations with Europe over the terms of the Iran nuclear accord.

With tensions between the two nations reaching dangerous levels, U.S. Democratic presidential candidates have joined progressive anti-war groups in vowing to oppose the Trump administration's efforts to start a military conflict with Iran.

In a speech streamed online Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said "a war with Iran would be an absolute disaster."

"The United States Congress must do everything it can," said Sanders, "to prevent the Trump administration's attempts to put us on the brink of a catastrophic and unconstitutional war with Iran that could lead to even more deaths than the Iraq War."

The United States Congress must do everything it can to prevent the Trump Administration’s attempts to put us on the brink of a catastrophic and unconstitutional war with Iran. https://t.co/n2Wbzcj2Pq

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 14, 2019

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) echoed Sanders in a tweet Tuesday night, announcing her decision to co-sponsor a bill aimed at stopping a war with Iran.

"We cannot let the Trump admin drag us into yet another war in the Middle East," Warren wrote. "This is exactly why the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare war. That's Congress's job—and that's why I'm supporting this legislation to prevent a war with Iran."