How the U.S. Army Sees The Arabs, Islam, and Middle Eastern Societies

By Barry Rubin

What do you tell soldiers who are risking their lives on Middle East battlefields about the people they are fighting for and against simultaneously? That’s a tough task. And now we have a fascinating picture of how it’s done.

“Arab Cultural Awareness” is a 73-page text by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.  It’s easy to make fun of some things in it. Yet how can one briefly explain a complex, different society riddled with exceptions to soldiers who have other concerns, little knowledge, and no experience with it?

Remember, we’re talking about a text whose first section is, “Where is the Arab World?” followed by “What is an Arab?” I think they did a conscientious and honorable job, avoiding prejudice without generally creating a fantasy image, and doing a reasonable job of explaining Islam and social customs.

But here’s what makes this text especially interesting to me: It was published in January 2006, after September 11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan made this information vital but before hard-core “Political Correctness” set in to freeze American brains. I’m certain this book couldn’t be written today because it is too honest.

The section, “Commom (sic) Misconceptions about Arabs” has to contend with lots of difficulties.

“Stereotypes of Arab males:

“--All are “oil-rich Sheiks”. As in the West, there are economically diverse segments of the population.

“--Mad dictators. Various types of political systems in Arab world.

“--Terrorists. Overwhelming majority are law abiding citizens with families and a wide variety

of occupations.” This is the only time a word deriving from “terror” appears. The words “Islamism” and “Arab nationalism” never appear at all, though it could be argued this text is about culture and not politics.

·”Stereotypes of Arab women:

“--All are oppressed by men. Not true.

“--All are veiled. According to Islam women are supposed to wear veils. In some countries, like Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, it is no imposed upon them and women are free to choose whether to wear veils. However, in other places, all women, even non-Muslims, wear veils out of fear of mistreatment by fanatics or those who pretend to be guardians of Islam.”

A book could be written about those two brief sections which hop through minefields of controversy. Consider the contradiction between saying Islam tells women they must wear veils with suggesting many do so only due to intimidation. Most, if not “all” women are oppressed. And in much of Syria and Egypt women are not free to choose in practice. Could the “mistreatment by fanatics” sentence be used by the Obama-era army? I doubt it.

To read the entire article click here

Where the “Counter-Obama” View of the Middle East is Right and Where It’s Wrong

By Barry Rubin

Jackson Diehl is by far the best journalist writing in the mass media about the Middle East.  In a recent column he tries to find some middle ground between the dominant ideas--that Islamist regimes are no problem at all and that the Muslim Brotherhood is really moderate—and what he defines as a too extreme conservative and Republican analysis.

While I don’t quite agree with him, there is much of merit in his dichotomy. We should all learn from it even though I’m going to suggest that it needs to be adjusted. Even if Obama's critics are on the right side about the Middle East and generally understand what's happening, many of them also make factual and analytical mistakes that undermine their credibility and may sometimes subvert their policies if they win office.

In addition, Diehl reminds us (how rarely that happens nowadays!) how good it feels to debate with people who actually think about the issues and cite evidence even if we disagree with them.  He actually believes that there is merit on both sides of the argument, again an attempt at balance that often seems close to extinction in this sad era.

Diehl begins with a highly critical account of a Fox news host and Governor Rick Perry’s hard-hitting but flawed account of contemporary Turkey.

The former said of Turkey—in Diehl’s view, a “mostly accurate but extremely one-sided description”—that since an “Islamist-oriented party took over . . . the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. [Prime Minister Recep Erdogan] has embraced Hamas, and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cyprus.”

Diehl provides what he sees to be the other side, that the Turkish government:

“has just stationed an advanced radar on its territory that could be used to track and shoot down missiles from Iran; that joined the NATO operaiton against Moammar Gaddafi [sic] in Libya; that has become the host of the opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; and that, having repeatedly won free democratic elections, amended Turkey’s constitution to expand rights for women, ethnic minorities and unions.”

Diehl, to his credit (it’s amazing how rare any balanced account is in the mass media nowadays!) continues, “that, too, was a one-sided account of the Erdogan record. But that is precisely the point: Turkey has become a complex, dynamic, difficult, sometimes infuriating, sometimes very helpful and indisputably important ally of the United States.”

Now Diehl presented five items as being to the credit of Erdogan’s regime. But let’s take them one at a time:

To read the entire article click here

Obama's Statement of Support for Lebanon Shows His Lack of Support for Lebanon

Please be subscriber 17,929 (and daily reader 19,929.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin


Even when you say the right thing it can only highlight the fact that you haven’t been doing it. Take President Barack Obama’s statement on Lebanon. The wording is all correct, yet it only makes the fact that this has nothing to do with actual U.S. policy stand out even more vividly.

Thus, when Obama said that he is committed to keeping Lebanon free of “terrorism,” the fact is that—in part due to weak U.S. policy—the country is largely under the control of Hizballah, a terrorist group. Right now, Hizballah doesn’t have to make many terrorist attacks since it has already used terrorism successfully to gain veto power over state policy.

Obama’s statement was timed for Lebanon's Independence Day, but that is only all the more ironic because Lebanon has once again lost its independence to Iranian and Syrian control. The message was also prompted by growing tension over the special tribunal investigation into the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.

Pretty much everyone in Lebanon knows the Syrians killed Hariri and it seems increasingly demonstrated by the tribunal investigation that Hizballah was involved. But what a hollow joke it is to speak of this when the Syrians and Hizballah hold such overwhelming power as to intimidate anyone else in Lebanon from doing anything about it.

Probably, even if the tribunal issued a report saying that Syria and Hizballah were guilty, Hariri’s own son—Said, leader of the Sunni Muslims and the Sunni-Christian moderate alliance—would denounce it as false. That’s tragic and one major reason why he would have to defend his own father’s murderers is that he knows he cannot rely on the United States.

"I am committed to doing everything I can,” said Obama, “to support Lebanon and ensure it remains free from foreign interference, terrorism, and war."

--Why, then, has not the U.S. government broken off its engagement with Syria—which has been leading nowhere—to protest Syria’s growing interference in Lebanon (not to mention involvement in killing American soldiers in Iraq and other misdeeds)?

--Why doesn’t he mention the U.S. pledges in 2006 to support a strong UN force capable of keeping Hizballah out of the south, stopping arms smuggling, and even helping the Lebanese government disarm that militia? Obama has not lifted a finger to get tough on these issues. He has stood by and watched while the UN force has been intimidated into passivity by Hizballah. In a real sense, Hizballah took on the entire world, supposedly under U.S. leadership, and won total victory.

-- Syria and Iran have given their side lavish financial and military support. They have helped commit acts of violence to intimidate those favoring a sovereign and independent Lebanon. Where is the U.S. counter-effort, including covert operations and behind-the-scenes funding? The Saudis—not Obama--tried their best to fight the radical Islamist axis without help from Obama.

And so, Obama has not done “everything I can,” he has done almost nothing at all. The moderates tremble and the radicals rejoice at this fact. Is there anyone in Lebanon, or even the Middle East, who doesn’t know this?

And then there’s this statement which in theory sounds good but is actually a disaster:

"The only way ahead is for all Lebanese to work together, not against each other, for a sovereign and independent Lebanon that enjoys both justice and stability."

To preach about how everyone should work together at this point means reinforcing the status quo which is what’s making a sovereign and independent Lebanon impossible. Only if the United States had given the Sunni-Christian-Druze alliance had stood up to Hizballah and not worked together in a national unity government would there have been hope. Obama will get his wish: everyone will work together to avoid challenging the new order dominated by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.

The Druze saw the writing on the wall and dropped out of the anti-Hizballah alliance some months ago. Their leader went from praising America and damning Syria, to praising Syria and damning America because he had no faith in Obama backing his people and keeping him alive in the face of the other side’s terrorism. His allies caved in also. Can you blame them?

You can practically hear the dictators sneer in Damascus, Tehran, and the terrorists chime in at Hizballah headquarters:

Ha! You are isolated. No one cares. No one will help you. Do you think America and Obama are going to come to your rescue? We will kill you and your families without the United States doing anything. Surrender or else!

And so they did.

Thus, it sounds a bit disgusting to hear Obama opine: "Lebanon and its children need a future where they can fulfill their dreams free of fear and intimidation."

Sad to say, they aren’t going to get it with your policy.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

U.S. Quietly Starts Missile Defense Program for Gulf

By Barry Rubin

One element of the plan to contain a nuclear-armed Iran is being put into place already: a U.S.-organized missile defense system against Iranian attacks, a task that is expected to take two to three years to install.

In 2008, the United States quietly put into Israel a high-powered X-Band radar and is looking for a place to put another powerful radar in a Persian Gulf country. The problem is that the two radars need to work together to be most effective in spotting Iranian attacks and no Gulf country would want to be seen cooperating with Israel even if its own existence is at stake. The U.S. argument is that this is an American-run system even if it is located on Israeli territory.

Anti-missile missiles would be coordinated in order to try to knock down any Iranian launches. Already there are such Patriot missiles in Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, supplemented by sea-based Aegis missiles. This process started during the Bush Administration.

What's Wrong--and Dangerously So--With U.S. Strategic Policy in the Middle East

Please be subscriber 16,141. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

We depend on your contributions. To make one through PayPal click the Donate button on this page. For more options, including tax-deductible contributions, go HERE.


By Barry Rubin

I've just read two interesting articles by David Goldman (better known by his pen name, Spengler) and Lee Smith which have different themes but fit together very nicely and make some incredibly important points.


Spengler shows that current U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority consists of creating heavily armed local armies, then withdrawing with the dubious expectation that they will be moderate, democratic, and pro-American.

In Iraq, for example, the United States is building up both regular Iraqi forces and a Sunni militia to fight terrorists who are clients of Iran and Syria. Yet the outcome might well be a bloody Iraqi civil war between U.S.-subsidized and trained armies. Moreover, when Washington stops bribing those involved they might well turn against their creator.

Regarding the Palestinian Authority (PA), the forces trained by General Keith Dayton and his team are more likely to wage war on Israel than on Hamas some day. Already, Goldman points out, the Taliban is seizing American money and weapons being handed out in Afghanistan. I could add that the United States, on a far smaller scale, is arming a Lebanese army which is close to being in Hizballah's pocket.

Goldman writes:


"Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the United States now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will persuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. It is perhaps the silliest thing an imperial power ever has done. The British played at divide and conquer, whereas the Americans propose to divide and disappear."

Lee Smith discusses a totally different aspect of the issue: the current U.S. concept of counterinsurgency. He points out that U.S. strategy in Iraq under both the Bush and Obama administrations might be setting up a future in which Iran wields dominant influence in that country:


"The test of victory is simply whether or not you are capable of imposing terms on your adversaries; if you can’t, if rather they shape your strategic decisions--e.g., if they determine your security environment by funding, arming and training militias--then you have not won."

Smith continues:

"If Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Al-Qods force can heat things up now with U.S. troops present, what do you think they will do once we have gone?...Not only have we not won, we have rendered ourselves incapable of acting against the agent that is most desirous of ruining our position across the region. In short, we have deterred ourselves on behalf of our enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Indeed, there are three other points that can be added here. First, current U.S. strategy very much reminds me of Vietnamization, the plan that was supposed to win the Vietnam war. The U.S. approach was to turn the fighting over to local forces and withdraw. This was a short-run success. The fact that the local forces then collapsed and the other side won the war was redefined as something for which U.S. policy wasn't responsible. A congressional funding cut-off played a role here, too.) Yet isn't what we're seeing today the old Richard Nixon strategy which could be summarized, to quote the formula of an antiwar senator earlier, as: Declare victory and bring the troops home.

It is funny how failed policies of the past are revived and given a change of name--often by the side that once opposed them--and then presented as bold new thinking.

That doesn't mean I'm advocating keeping the troops there, especially when it comes to Afghanistan but also to Iraq. Not at all. The real problem is the failure to define the real enemy and do everything possible to foil it by other means, too. One of the most important ways to do so is to maintain credibility, toughness, and vigorous leadership of allies, all ideas very much out of fashion in official Washington.

The other two points are central to my soon-to-be published piece in Foreign Affairs (which I will make available on publication). That is, the main task for the United States today is a long, difficult battle that the United States will have to wage against the Iran-led alliance, and other revolutionary Islamist groups, throughout the region to contain or defeat them. (For a detailed discussion of what U.S. foreign policy should be understanding and doing, see HERE.)


Given the weakness and unreliability of most local U.S. allies--the Afghan government, internally divided Shia leadership in Iraq, PA and Fatah, faint-hearted and quick-to-appease Arab states--this struggle is going to be all the more difficult.

There is also a mountain-sized paradox in current U.S. policy which is so obvious it is remarkable virtually everyone is missing it:

On the one hand, the Obama Administration tends to appear fearful of angering, much less confronting, enemies. On the other hand, this same government insists it can contain Iran by making it fear America! At the same time, it insists local U.S. allies will stand up and take risks because they are so certain that the United States is strong and determined!

After having shown itself to be so non-scary, so opposed to intimidation and power politics, how is the Obama Administration going to make Iran tremble?

You don't cease looking like a paper tiger by suddenly issuing a quavering growl that you have muscles of stainless steel.

Perhaps the Obama Administration might jump into a phone booth and emerge as a new and transformed leadership? But there's no sign of this happening at all.*


Both Goldman and Smith show that the U.S. government is eager to claim victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Israel-Palestinian peace process. Yet the actions undertaken by that government will in fact make things worse.

Smith puts it very well:

"We did we not win in Iraq because states like Syria and Iran did not pay a price for the acts of force they used to shape political effects to their own advantage; when we failed to do so we abandoned our Middle East policy to the mercy of our enemies, who, as we are repeatedly told, can ruin Iraq and Afghanistan whenever they decide to take off their gloves. We did not win because our leadership, abetted by Washington policy intellectuals, is more interested in political effects in Washington than strategic victories in the Middle East. Seen in this light, the only American victory in the region is a pyrrhic one, the bitter harvest of which we may well be reaping for many years to come."

I'm not sure that the United States could have done better directly in Iraq itself than has happened in direct terms. But ignoring the daily involvement of Iran and Syria in sponsoring, arming, training, and financing terrorists to kill Americans is a disaster. Similarly, not holding Syria and Iran responsible for their policy in Lebanon while not developing a truly tough anti-Hamas policy are also setting up a sharp decline in American credibility combined with a boost for the revolutionary Islamist (and Iran-Syria) side.

All these points will be very clear in 20 or 30 years as people look back on these mistakes but are powerless to change them. It would be far better if they were understood and corrected right now.


*For those who don't know, Superman disguised himself as the mild-mannered Clark Kent but when faced with a crisis he jumped into a phone booth and changed into his superhero clothes before going off to bash the villains. Unfortunately, there are no more phone booths in America, which has a certain symbolic significance in this context, doesn't it?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Other Than Apartments in Jerusalem, What Else is Going on in the Middle East?

By Barry Rubin

While the Obama Administration is fiddling over the construction of apartments in Jerusalem, the Middle East is burning. Yet these other issues don’t attract the attention—and certainly not the action—required.

1. Iran is now allied with al-Qaida: General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, revealed a bombshell story that has been ignored: Iran is helping al-Qaida attack Americans.

Iran, he said in military-speak, provides "a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaida's senior leadership to regional affiliates." Translation: Tehran is letting al-Qaida leaders travel freely back and forth to Pakistan and Afghanistan, using its territory as a safe haven, while permitting them to hold meetings to plan terrorist attacks for attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans. While nominally Iran sometimes takes these people into custody, that seems, Petraeus says, a fiction to fool foreigners.

Oh, and Petraeus added that Iran also helps the Taliban fight America in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq, the general explains, "The Qods Force [an elite Iranian military group within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] also maintains its lethal support to Shia Iraqi militia groups, providing them with weapons, funding and training,"

So, Petraeus pointed out that Iran is helping al-Qaida against the United States and also, at times, Shia groups intended to be Iran’s proxies for spreading its influence in Iraq. In effect, the Tehran regime is at war with the United States. Yet this point is not being highlighted, nor does it stir rage in the hearts of White House officials or strenuous attempts to counter this threat.

Meanwhile, Iran isn’t just building apartments but nuclear weapons’ facilities.

2. Lebanon being further integrated into Iran-Syria alliance

In an interview with al-Jazira television, Walid Jumblatt, formerly the roaring lion of the opposition, turns into a mouse and apologizes to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad:

"I said, at a moment of anger, what is improper and illogical against President Bashar Assad.” And now he is begging for an invitation to Damascus where he can kiss the ring of the man whose father (Hafiz al-Asad) murdered his father (Kemal Jumblatt).

One cannot blame Walid Jumblatt nor Sa’d al-Hariri, leader of the March 14 coalition, whose father was murdered by Bashar himself and has already gone to Damascus to beg forgiveness.

But Jumblatt, leader of the main Druze community in Lebanon, was a man who not long ago denied comparing Bashar al-Asad to a dog by saying that to do so would be an insult to canines. Jumblatt was also the man who bragged about being a friend of the United States during his rebellious phase. No more.

Meanwhile, Hizballah, which enjoys veto power in Lebanon’s government, isn’t just building apartments, its building fortifications and importing record amounts of weapons.

3. It is now clear that Russia and China won’t support sanctions on Iran, at least if they are going to be expected to respect them in their own activities. The administration’s plan is in major trouble and there’s no way out, except to do the most minimal possible sanctions and claim victory.

Russia openly defies the Obama Administration by insisting it will finish a nuclear plant for Iran, just when Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is visiting! This was a real slap in the face, much bigger strategically than the apartments’ issue. But there will be no strong reaction from Washington.

According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: “We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement."

So Russia still isn’t ready to support sanctions and isn’t building apartments in Iran but rather a nuclear reactor.

Same thing with China, whose Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: "We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts."

China isn’t building apartments in Iran but developing oilfields and building a huge oil refinery, plus reportedly supplying weapons.

4. Despite U.S. concessions aimed to reduce Syria’s alliance with Iran, their bond is getting stronger, as witnessed by Asad’s invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Damascus and their signing of new cooperation agreements. During the press conference, Asad literally laughed at U.S. policy.

5. Increasing signs of Turkey’s close cooperation with the Iran-Syria axis. Both Ahmadinejad and the official Syrian government newspaper now call Turkey an ally of Syria and Iran.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sounds the same way, insisting that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, that Ahmadinejad is a “friend,” and that the United States has no right to try to stop Iran from getting such weapons any way.

The Turkish government isn’t building just apartments but an alliance with Tehran and an increasingly Islamist regime at home.

So let's leave it to Ahmadinejad to summarize how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and lots of Arabs both pro- and anti-American:

The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape.…The [American] government has no influence [to stop].…the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties--God willing, Iraq too will join the circle...."

Iran is also building not just apartments and not even just nuclear facilities and not even just revolutions abrod. It's also building an empire or, to put things more modestly, a very large sphere of influence.

In short, the regional situation is terrible. None of this really has much to do with Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian issues; none of this is going to change because U.S. policy is seen as being tough on Israel. What the Arabs want to see is whether U.S. policy is going to be tough on Iran and its allies.

The Obama Administration policy isn't making the radicals more moderate but rather--by feeding their arrogance and belief in American weakness--making them more aggressive. Every day the regional situation is becoming more dangerous, but the highest-level and highest-priority U.S. efforts seem to be largely over getting indirect Israel-Palestinian talks which everyone involved knows will produce nothing.

Something is seriously wrong here. Of course this isn't the first time such things have happened in battling aggressive dictatorships, both in the case of Germany and of the USSR. Still, one can only echo the words of George Orwell, written in his diary in early 1941:

"The most depressing thing in this war is not the disasters we are bound to suffer at this stage, but the knowledge that we are being led by weaklings....It is as though your life depended on a game of chess, and you had to sit watching it, seeing the most idiotic moves being made and being powerless to prevent them."

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

The U.S. Military Looks at the Middle East: Bows to the White House But Knows Its Mission, Too

Please subscribe and be subscriber number 9,102!

By Barry Rubin

The Department of Defense has just released its new Quadrennial Defense Review Report for 2010. What does it say about the Middle East? Far less than you’d expect in terms of space but still some extremely important points about what might involve the United States in future wars there.

Aside from some scattered references on the need for more civilian nation-building experts, funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and energy conservation efforts (that's an area, no doubt, where money could be saved), that region takes up less than two pages, about two percent, of the 97-page report.

In comparison, about one-quarter of the four-page note from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, attached to the report, spends 25 percent on the region and sounds far more sensible.

I read this gap as suggesting that the uniformed military (which prepared the admiral's note) is concerned about Iran and terrorist groups but that the text’s main body, by the secretary of defense and designed to please the White House, puts more emphasis on climate change, green energy, and the use of the military as a community-organizing type force to make civilians in places like Afghanistan more friendly to the United States.

But there are significant points of interests in both sections. Let’s start with the report itself which basically makes three points.

First, while an Iranian nuclear capability and terrorism are basically not mentioned at all, there is significant concern over two aspects of Iran’s military build-up. Iranian missile systems are becoming more accurate and longer-range, meaning U.S. air bases, command centers, and other military targets could come under attack. This concern presumably originated in the U.S. Army.

The other Iranian military threat comes from “large numbers of small, fast attack craft designed to support `swarming’ tactics that seek to overwhelm the layers of defenses deployed by U.S. and other nations’ naval vessels.” Though the report doesn’t say so, this refers to the Persian Gulf, and especially the narrow Straits of Hormuz, where petroleum and natural gas shipping could be blocked. This assessment no doubt came from the U.S. Navy.

The report also mentions that “non-state actors such as Hezbollah have acquired unmanned aerial vehicles and man-portable air defense systems from Iran.” And this was clearly the contribution of the U.S. Air Force. ("Man-portable," that means someone can carry it. I love military-speak.)

Taken as a whole, these concerns point to a possible scenario often forgotten in current discussions. The United States is not going to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. It is possible, however, that a future military clash could originate by an Iranian act of aggression—perhaps coming from lower-ranking personnel or some miscalculation—that could result in an armed conflict. While not highly likely, such an outcome is more possible when Iran has nuclear weapons and has gained in confidence (arrogance to put it bluntly). Again, this is a low-likelihood scenario but one the U.S. military has to be prepared to meet.

Since the U.S. government seems determined not to take notice Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in terrorist attacks elsewhere--for example the Khaibar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia--this doesn't seem a likely cause of conflict. Of course, the United States doesn't want--and should not want--to get into a war with Iran. The problem, however, is the failure to use of tough talk, sanctions, organizing an anti-Tehran alliance, or other stronger diplomatic means to discourage such behavior by the Iranian regime.

Second, and perhaps most interesting of all, is the Department of Defense's concept of strategy for the region:

“It is time to renew focus on a strategic architecture that better serves U.S., allied, and partner interests….Long-term relationships and shared interests with allies and partners will clarify our extended commitment to the region’s security, enhance the resiliency of our defense posture, and improve our collective ability to carry out current operations while preparing for contingency requests.”

To translate this into normal English: The United States has to build up its alliances and cooperation with local states. But what does this mean? Most obviously, it requires working with the Gulf Arab states (and especially Saudi Arabia), Jordan, Israel, Iraq, and Egypt against Iran’s ambitions. “Shared interests” is a code word for that factor. Two other states which should be on that list—Lebanon and Turkey—have basically gone over to the other side though the U.S. government may not realize that situation.

But what does it mean in practice to build up such arrangements? The term “strategic architecture” is a fancy way of saying some kind of alliance system. But for several reasons—inter-Arab quarrels, the Arab-Israeli conflict, radical posturing by moderate Arab states, and Arab appeasement of Iran—this isn’t going to happen the way it should if only national interests were the motivations. (This is why “Realist” analysts don’t understand the Middle East but that’s for another article.)

Note also the phrase “extended commitment” which means U.S. power is in the area to stay, that Washington won’t bug out on allies, or in short, American credibility. That factor has been fast declining during the first year of the Obama administration.

Finally, there is Iraq, where the language strikes me as a little strange and potentially explosive:

“The United States will therefore manage a responsible force drawdown in Iraq and support an orderly transition to a more normal diplomatic and civilian presence.” The word “drawdown” means fewer troops, not complete withdrawal. Remember that one for the future—the Defense Department wants to keep open the option of keeping soldiers in Iraq and that might not just include trainers.

What does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs say? Well, he’s far blunter about it: “I remain concerned about the nuclear ambitions and confrontational postures of Iran and North Korea.” These are real threats and the word “confrontational” means that they might go to war on U.S. allies or forces. By the way, if you want to know what the United States really should be worried about regarding Iran's nuclear weapons read this.

He quickly adds, paying obeisance to the White House, how the report “emphasizes the President’s focus on engagement and reinforces our efforts to work with allies and partners to prevent global nuclear proliferation, regardless of origin.”

If you understand how these things work, that sentence has the bureaucratic brilliance of a masterpiece painting and the humor of a great comedian. It hits all the Obama themes: yes, engagement is great, we prefer a deal, of course we should never act unilaterally, and we would like to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

But the chairman goes on with a couple of great “at the same time” points regarding countering weapons of mass destruction, finding where such weapons are, and destroying them if necessary.

Translation: We know we are probably on our own. All this politics stuff is great but in the final analysis—when engagement fails and others look after their own interests rather than help us--the U.S. military must be ready to squish anyone threatening us. Yep, that’s what it’s there for.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.