Trump makes clear to Pentagon chief Shanahan he does not want war with Iran

Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman and Mark Landler
SF Gate
Thu, 16 May 2019 02:53 UTC

© Eugene Hoshiko / AFP / Getty Images

Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (right) said there is "no possibility" of talks with the U.S.

President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying U.S. pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict.

Trump's statement, during a Wednesday morning meeting in the Situation Room, came during a briefing on the rising tensions with Iran. U.S. intelligence has indicated that Iran has placed missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf, prompting fears that Tehran may strike at U.S. troops and assets or those of its allies.

No new information was presented to the president at the meeting that argued for further engagement with Iran, according to a person in the room. But Trump was firm in saying he did not want a military clash with the Iranians, several officials said.

On Thursday, Trump was asked during a visit by the Swiss president, Ueli Maurer, whether the United States was going to war with Iran.

"I hope not," he replied.

The president has sought to tamp down reports that two of his most hawkish aides - the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - are spoiling for a fight with Iran.

"There is no infighting whatsoever," Trump said in a tweet Wednesday.

But Trump added he was confident Iran "will want to talk soon," signaling an openness to diplomacy that officials said is not shared by Bolton or Pompeo.

The president's professed hopes for a dialogue with Iran seem unlikely to produce a breakthrough any time soon. In Tokyo, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran said there was "no possibility" of discussions with the administration to ease the tensions, Agence France-Presse reported.

Pompeo has outlined 12 steps Iran must take to satisfy the United States - measures some in the Pentagon view as unrealistic and could back Iranian leaders into a corner.

Trump is less frustrated with Bolton over his handling of Iran - he favors the tougher measures as a warning to Tehran - than over the evolving narrative that his national security adviser is leading the administration's policy in the Middle East, according to three officials.

Comment: ZeroHedge follows up:

Soaring tensions of the past nearly two weeks paving the way for a potential direct military clash in the Persian Gulf between the US and Iran could be de-escalating as rapidly as they began as the president attempts to reign in hawks in his own administration, per a new report in FT:

President Donald Trump said he hoped the US would not go to war with Iran, cooling tensions at the end of a week in which worries spiked over the risk of conflict between the US and the Islamic republic. As he stood outside the West Wing waiting to meet Swiss president Ueli Maurer on Thursday, Mr Trump was asked by a reporter whether the US was going to war with Iran. He replied: "I hope not."

This as the WSJ also reports Trump is fast reining in his two Iran hawk horsemen of the apocalypse Bolton and Pompeo: "There are sharply differing views within the Trump administration over the meaning of intelligence showing Iran and its proxies making military preparations, people familiar with the matter said," according to the report.

So Trump doesn't want war, and now with the Senate demanding it be given a comprehensive briefing on just what the increased Iran threat constitutes and the intelligence consensus behind it (or lack thereof), it looks like the war train could be grinding to a halt.

Bloomberg also agrees, per its latest report:

President Donald Trump is wary of drawing the U.S. into a war with Iran, in part out of concern that an armed conflict with the Islamic Republic would imperil his chances at winning a second term, according to people familiar with the matter. U.S.'s evidence of Iran threat readied for release by Pentagon.

But the Pentagon war machine's next move could hinge on what's been revealed as the initial key piece of intelligence "evidence" of Iran's "attack preparations" that got us here in the first place, starting with Bolton's May 5th announcement of a major Iranian threat escalation. The "smoking gun" that started it all apparently hinges on satellite photos showing Iranian paramilitary forces moving missiles on boats in the Persian Gulf (perhaps even in their own territorial waters!?).

The New York Times cited three defense officials who confirmed that,

"The intelligence that caused the White House to escalate its warnings about a threat from Iran came from photographs of missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf that were put on board by Iranian paramilitary forces."

But crucially, according to US intelligence officials cited by the WSJ, the "missile movement" satellite photographs may have just been picking up on Iranian defensive measures that came in reaction to Tehran's belief that a US military attack was on the horizon.

"Intelligence collected by the U.S. government shows Iran's leaders believe the U.S. planned to attack them, prompting preparation by Tehran for possible counterstrikes, according to one interpretation of the information," reports The Wall Street Journal's Warren Strobel, Nancy Youssef, and Vivian Salama.

However, what was originally set in motion itself has momentum enough to spark confrontation, given on Thursday two Navy destroyers have entered the Persian Gulf as the American military continues to add to its assets in the region to head off any planned Iranian 'aggression', USNI reported.

The USS McFaul and USS Gonzalez traveled through the Strait of Hormuz Thursday afternoon without being challenged by IRGC forces. They joined the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is stationed in the Gulf of Oman, as well as a strike force that includes several B-52 bombers out of Qatar.

So there it is: formula for de-escalation; however, the chances of some "accident" happening which leads to clashes remains high and unpredictable, at which point the intelligence debate Congress is demanding could turn into a moot afterthought, as is the pattern with many US wars.