PNN – Donald Trump has been repeating these days that there is division in Iran and it is not clear who we are on. He is trying to paint a picture of ambiguity and instability in Tehran’s decision-making structure. While Trump talks about division in Tehran, the Pentagon, in the middle of a war, is removing its commanders one by one from the war train.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; Donald Trump has been repeating these days that there is division in Iran and it is not clear who we are on. He is trying to paint a picture of ambiguity and instability in Tehran’s decision-making structure. While Trump talks about division in Tehran, the Pentagon, in the middle of a war, is removing its commanders one by one from the war train.
A review of American and Western media reports – from the BBC and Reuters to the Associated Press, Axios and the most recent report by the Guardian – presents a completely different and somewhat contradictory narrative. A narrative that shows that the disarray and instability in decision-making these days is attached to Washington, not Tehran. According to these same media reports, in less than two months since the US war against Iran, at least five senior US military and security officials have been dismissed or forced to resign. Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote in his resignation letter in protest: Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. This war was started because of Israeli pressure. Randy George (Chief of Staff of the Army), David Haden (Head of the Transformation and Training Command), William Green (Head of the Chaplain Corps) and John Flynn (Secretary of the Navy) are other officials who were dismissed during this period. The Associated Press revealed that John Flynn was told to resign or be fired and was thrown out of his office without warning.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Guardian recently reported that 24 generals and senior commanders have been fired or forced into retirement since Trump took office, without any clear reason given for their actions. Notably, nearly 60 percent of them were black or female, a move that critics say is part of a purge of dissent and an attack on diversity and equality policies. Among them are Lisa Franchetti, the first female chief of naval operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and C.Q. Brown, the first black commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Randy George was also apparently removed from his post simply because he refused to remove four black and female officers from his promotion list.
The significance of these developments is doubly significant when we consider the context in which they occurred: these changes occurred not under normal circumstances, but in the midst of a military conflict and at the height of tensions with Iran; a situation that, in professional military logic, usually requires the highest level of stability in the command structure, not sweeping changes at the top of the decision-making pyramid. For this reason, the reactions within the United States itself have been unprecedented.
Axios revealed that three anonymous Pentagon officials reacted sharply to the dismissals, with one calling the actions crazy and another asking: Why would a four-star general who is preparing troops and equipment for war be fired in the middle of a war? That is, a commander who is preparing his forces for battle suddenly disappears, leaving his soldiers wondering whether they are the victim of a political settlement or a decision. Retired U.S. Army General Paul Eaton has compared the atmosphere to the Stalinist purges and warned that the military’s high command has been seriously damaged; fear and silence among commanders are undermining operational efficiency. He and other former Pentagon officials have described the current situation as complete chaos, something beyond the usual political and military disputes that are not handled with any professionalism. But this is not just a political fight in the corridors of Washington; if this chaos was repeated on the deck of a ship or in the command room of a base, American soldiers and even their allies would pay with their blood.
From another perspective, attributing ambiguity and discord to Iran, while Western media reports of complete chaos and the purge of 24 senior commanders, is no longer analysis; it means that Washington has seen its own image in the mirror and called it Tehran.
In contrast to this picture, in Iran, during the same period of time, no credible and documented report of resignations or dismissals at high decision-making levels has been published. What is noticeable in the country’s political atmosphere is the plurality of views and expert opinions, not elimination and cleansing. This plurality of opinions, however, ultimately achieves coordination and coherence under a specific and centralized decision-making structure. The coherent presence of a high-ranking delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Islamabad negotiations and the presentation of a specific plan to end the war to the American side clearly demonstrated Iran’s responsible approach to international issues and presented an image of diplomacy arising from plurality but coherent and based on strategic rationality in the international arena.
Perhaps it is time for Washington to look at the decision-making crisis in the Pentagon instead of looking for a decision-maker in Tehran.