Nicknamed "the Fox" by his colleagues, he was renowned as one of the best strategists in the US military, and the most diplomatic - the "voice of reason in the administration" according to Hillary Clinton. When President George Bush appointed him Commander of the US Central Command, he had hoped to rely on him in the confrontation with Iran. He is Admiral William Fallon, who submitted his resignation two days ago, generating a whirlwind of interpretations as to the reasons behind it, despite the clarity of the resignation text itself.

According to Esquire Magazine, the main reason behind Fallon's resignation is his opposition to the war against Iran. He cannot imagine what the state of the Islamic world, and its position vis-a-vis Washington, would be in the event of such a war. So is the war against Iran under preparation?

British and US sources attest that the US Department of Defense has set up a plan to attack Iran, dubbed "Checkmate". An Air Force Strategic Studies Group was entrusted with planning the war, under the leadership of Brigadier-General Lawrence A. Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and expert in electronic warfare (CNN, Sunday Times). The presence of the latter in the Group might give credit to such information, since Israel is most eager to attack Iran, and considers the downfall of the Iranian regime to be a crucial issue.

The fact of the matter is that Project "Checkmate" is not new: it was used by the United States in the 1970s against the Soviet Union, and again during the second Gulf War when it drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. If this information is mentioned in the media to such an extent, then surely Admiral Fallon must have learned of it from other military sources and decided to submit his resignation - since it is the military leadership which will be held responsible for any failure in war.

Such a conclusion is further corroborated by information pointing to intense disagreement between Admiral Fallon and the Commander of the US Forces in Iraq General David H. Petraeus. The Admiral is the first naval officer to hold the position of Commander of the Central Command, to which General Petraeus belongs. However, the conflict between the two men runs deeper than mere professional competition. The Admiral was against the increase of US troops in Iraq and was planning for their withdrawal in July 2008, whereas Petraeus was the man behind the idea of reinforcement, with the direct support of the High Commander, "General" George Bush. Moreover, Petraeus considers that victory in Iraq will not be possible without a blow to Iran that would reduce its influence. Fallon, on the other hand, views this as a great risk, considering that the backbone of the current government in Bagdad is constituted of Shiite parties loyal to Tehran. There is no telling how they, or the rest of the Islamic world, would react if Petraeus's views were to be implemented.

The Bush administration is being accused of playing poker in its conflict with Iran, whereas Tehran is playing chess, which is said to be a Persian invention. The US attack plan, although not novel, has been given the name "Checkmate" in reply to such accusations. So will Fallon's resignation precipitate the war, or postpone it until disputes within the US military, and between a large number of its military officers and their civilian leaders, are settled? Those who oppose the US's wars in the Middle East are hoping that Tehran will not consider Fallon's resignation a victory of its policies. The fact is Iran cannot be credited for any efforts in the matter, as this is merely an internal US dispute, and Bush can easily find a hundred generals to take over the mission of the Admiral who resigned before saying "check".