The Pentagon and the White House sought Wednesday to counter speculation that the abrupt departure of the top commander in the Middle East, who publicly opposed going to war with Iran, signals a shift in Bush administration policy toward Tehran.

On camera and behind the scenes, the message was the same: The U.S. is not poised to invade Iran, and the administration is not closer to a confrontation now that Adm. William Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command, will be out of its way.

“U.S. policy toward Iran remains unchanged,” said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House. “The president is seeking a diplomatic solution to Iran’s refusal to comply with international demands that it suspend its nuclear enrichment.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sounded a similar note in a brief exchange with reporters, saying President Bush believes “a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue is possible if the world stays strong and reacts in a unified way.”

Behind closed doors at the Pentagon, many were still reeling from the news of Fallon’s sudden resignation Tuesday. His decision, communicated early that morning in a call to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, took both Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by surprise.

Across the board, officials insisted that Fallon was not forced out and that it certainly was not _ as some have charged _ a move to eliminate the last man standing between Bush and a military strike against Iran. A recent Esquire magazine profile described Fallon, 63, as “The Man Between War and Peace” and the lone voice opposed to a strike against Tehran.

In fact, both Gates and Mullen have repeatedly made statements calling for diplomacy rather than direct conflict with Iran. Mullen, who was traveling when he got the word from Fallon Tuesday, said flatly that “this should not be seen as a sign _ at all _ towards any kind of conflict with Iran.”

“Ridiculous,” is the word Gates used, when asked if Fallon’s leaving signaled an escalation to war with Iran.

Still, on the very day Johndroe and Rice made their pronouncements, the White House issued an executive order declaring that the national emergency regarding Iran’s ongoing threat to U.S. national security would be formally extended for another year.

“Because the actions and policies of the government of Iran continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,” the emergency must continue, the order stated.

The dustup also comes as Vice President Dick Cheney prepares for a trip the Middle East. Cheney, one of the strongest administration voices against Iran, warned of a growing threat from Iran.

“Tehran continues to develop technologies that could lead to its building an ICBM capable of striking the United States, perhaps as soon as late in the next decade,” Cheney said, referring to intercontinental ballistic missiles. “Given all that we do about the Iranian regime’s hatred of America, its vow to destroy Israel and its ongoing efforts to develop the technology that could be used for a nuclear weapon, that is a danger every one of us must take seriously.”

Similarly, just last December, Gates issued a sharp warning to Iran during a speech in Bahrain. Calling Tehran a threat to the United States and every country in the Middle East, Gates called for stricter sanctions to force Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment.

He added that it would be wrong to underestimate the military power of the United States. Some countries, he said, “may believe our resolve has been corroded by the challenges we face at home and abroad. This would be a grave misconception.”

Fallon’s public statements on Iran have suggested unhappiness with the Bush administration’s saber-rattling.

“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television last September. “I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.”

In the end, it appeared that it was not the substance of Fallon’s challenges to U.S. policy _ which ranged from troop cuts in Iraq to Iran _ that brought him down, but the public avenue he took.

Providing contrary views to his superiors _ from Bush to Gates _ is acceptable in private. But on several recent occasions, Fallon delivered a message of discontent or disagreement through the media _ a route considered impolitic at best.

“If there is a perception that they’re not speaking with one voice, then that becomes a problem, and that’s what Secretary Gates and Admiral Fallon both said yesterday,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino, who also said Bush did not dictate the personnel change.

The decision, all agree, was Fallon’s.

Fallon said that as he traveled overseas, dealing with international leaders in the Middle East, he determined that the perception of his differences with the administration were hindering his effectiveness.

“As Secretary Gates said, when it comes to Iran, he does not believe that there was a difference, but there had built up over a period of time a perception that there was a difference,” Perino said. “And when it comes to foreign policy, it’s critical that an administration speak with one voice.

___

Associated Press writers Anne Gearan and Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil