NYT: Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb

[spurster]

Bring it on!

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/2...diplo.html

Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - At a time when the violent insurgency in Iraq is vexing the Bush administration and stirring worries among Americans, events may be propelling the United States into yet another confrontation, this time with Iran. The issues have an almost eerie familiarity, evoking the warnings and threats that led to the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and stirring an equally passionate debate.

Like Iraq in its final years under Saddam Hussein, Iran is believed by experts to be on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In Iraq, that proved to be untrue, though this time the consensus is much stronger among Western experts.

In addition, as with Iraq, administration officials have said recently that Iran is supporting insurgencies and terrorism in other countries. Recently, top administration officials have accused the Tehran government of backing the rebels in Iraq, something that officials fear could increase if Iran is pressed too hard on its nuclear program.

A parallel concern in Washington is Iran's continued backing of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group that the administration and the Israeli government say is channeling aid to groups attacking Israeli civilians. Israel also warns that Iran's nuclear program will reach a "point of no return" next year, after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance.

The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement. But in another similarity with the Iraq situation before the war, Washington is in considerable disagreement with key allies over how to handle the threat.

Britain, France and Germany say Iran's nuclear program is unacceptable, but they also warn that a confrontation could backfire and that incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran. Threatening sanctions - a cutoff in oil purchases, for example - is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, they say.

European views cannot be dismissed, especially after the discord over Iraq, administration officials say. Last weekend, under European pressure, the United States agreed to defer its demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency immediately refer Iran's noncooperation on nuclear issues to the United Nations Security Council, where sanctions might be considered.Instead, Iran was given two more months to show that it was cooperating.

Still, even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the leading advocate of diplomacy in Mr. Bush's inner circle, cites a gathering threat from Iran.

"Diplomacy does not mean failure to look in the lion's mouth," Mr. Powell said in a recent interview. "Diplomacy doesn't mean pretending something isn't there when it's there. The Iranians have a nuclear weapons program, and I keep telling everybody it is the responsibility of the international community to apply all the pressure we can."

With Iran policy in a state of flux, there is a drive among conservatives to reach out to Iranian dissidents and exiles seeking to overthrow the government, much as efforts were made with Iraqis in the 1990's. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, is sponsoring legislation favoring "regime change," with what some say is the tacit backing of administration conservatives.

Last year, when it was trying to reach out to Tehran for cooperation on Iraq, the administration stated that it did not support regime change in Iran, though President Bush also spoke out in favor of greater democracy there.

Administration officials say that there was an internal debate last year but that the idea of giving aid to dissidents who might try to overthrow the Iranian government had been dropped for lack of any credible groups to support.

Yet the cause of regime change in Iran is expected to be revived if President Bush is re-elected, administration officials say. Leading the charge is John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for nonproliferation, who gave a speech last month saying that Iran's conduct did not "bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue." A colleague called him "the self-appointed tip of the spear" in the discussions.

In an interview, Mr. Bolton declined to comment on whether regime change was appropriate for Iran, other than to say that even without outside support, widespread unhappiness among Iranians over a lagging economy and stifling religious rule could bring a "revolution from below."

"When the old regime in South Africa collapsed they got rid of their nukes," Mr. Bolton said. "When Ukraine became independent they did the same. At a time of profound dislocation, it is not inconceivable that a new government in Tehran might be persuaded to drop its nuclear program."

On the other side of the spectrum, some at the State Department say no solution is possible without a discussion of benefits to the Tehran government if it changes its behavior, or without progress in the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians.

Some experts call for a "grand bargain" that would involve an across-the-board agreement in which changed behavior by Tehran on all fronts would be negotiated in return for normal relations and investment from the West.

Still other experts say that such an approach is overly ambitious and that "selective engagement" on a few crucial issues, including steps to stabilize Iraq, should be tried first. That view is advocated by a Council on Foreign Relations committee led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, a director of central intelligence in the early 1990's.

In three and a half years the Bush administration has tried engaging Iran, but little has come of its efforts. Diplomatic contacts at low levels were suspended in May of last year. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, is charging the Bush administration with ignoring the Iran problem. Mr. Kerry said last month that the United States "must work with our allies to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and be ready to work with them to implement a range of tougher measures if needed."

For all the talk about new policies, few administration officials or policy makers and experts outside the administration think that any new approach will be unveiled soon.

A final unpredictable factor in the discussions involves Israel, which some intelligence experts say would be willing to strike one or more Iranian weapons sites, as it did with the French-built nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

Israeli and American officials insist that the idea of a strike against Iranian sites is impractical. Nevertheless, some diplomats were rattled by a recent warning from Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, that Iran would retaliate if Israel tried any such thing.

"I'm frankly very pessimistic about the future," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Ins ute for Near Eastern Policy. "We have to offer a carrot as well as brandishing a stick. But this administration is too busy and they don't want to think about it. I don't think very much is going to happen until after the American election."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Tommy Duncan]

The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement. But in another similarity with the Iraq situation before the war, Washington is in considerable disagreement with key allies over how to handle the threat.

Britain, France and Germany say Iran's nuclear program is unacceptable, but they also warn that a confrontation could backfire and that incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran. Threatening sanctions - a cutoff in oil purchases, for example - is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, they say.

Yes, none of the options are attractive, just like Iraq.

On the other side of the spectrum, some at the State Department say no solution is possible without a discussion of benefits to the Tehran government if it changes its behavior, or without progress in the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians.

...which continues since Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yassir Arafat rejected Israel's offer of basically everything the Palestinians have ever wanted a few years back. After that little episode I think it is safe to say that the "impasse" will never be resolved.

As for the "behavior" of the Iranian government, what is the punishment if they are uncooperative? According to the article sanctions are viewed as being an ineffective tool.

[exstatic]

As for the "behavior" of the Iranian government, what is the punishment if they are uncooperative?

Invasion. After all....
























They have nukes....don't they? Or will they just give them to Syria?

[Tommy Duncan]

So basically it's gripe no matter what the Bush administration does.

[xrayzebra]

Tommy, believe me when I say, Iraq is only the beginning.
Libya got the message early. We are in a long, drawn out
war that is global in nature. Much of which is not visible.
Iran and Mr. I-are-fat have their day coming. The war we
are in is going to be long and costly, in treasure and
people. Syria needs to duck also. North Korea....China is
going to handle that. They want no others invading their
space. They are the big dog and intend to stay that way.
We have a president that is going to do what he says and
say what he is going to do. Bush told us what we were going
to do and we have done it. He named the countries and
gave them advance notice. They damn well know it and
they also know what is going to happen, they think they
have an answer, but they haven't felt the wrath yet.
The Saudi's know where their bread is buttered and have
had a considerable change of mind, and are doing something
about it. Like I said earlier, it is going to be a long and
costly war. But the cold war was also long and costly and
cost many lives. Many of which were not known.

[Tommy Duncan]

I'm not sure you invade Iran. But you definitely turn up the pressure. Hopefully the pressure for Iran to change will come from within. The NYT gives its usual negative outlook on that angle (wonder how that part of the article would read if it was a Demo in the Big House) but I think there is something to that.

What happened to Hussein does serve as a indication that the US is serious about dealing with threats to its national security. I think it gives the US a certain amount of credibility in talks with the Iranians.

[xrayzebra]

I think you may be right about Iran. Pressure from within
could be a deciding factor. But they have the hardline
Muslims to contend with. They have stopped the moderates
from going "to far". We shall see, but I see Bush sending
a message to these folks that we wont stand by their
outlook. I was just thinking about something. The Sudan is
Muslims "cleansing". The Kosovo(sp) was about Muslim
"cleansing" and the Phillipines (sp) was about Muslim's,
One other country which I cant think of at this time was
the same. But none of our wonderful "posters" ever want
to bring this up. It is always the United States is the bad
guy. BS.....

[Yonivore]

We just sold a butt-load of smart bombs to Israel. Don't count on them sitting in a munitions dump for too terribly long.

[Tommy Duncan]

Hussein was an asshole and he was getting out of control. He was a prime candidate to be removed and set an example of.

The thing is that if you attack Iran while you are dealing with some real assholes they are Shiite assholes and what looks like the US taking action to deal with assholes begins to look like a war against Islam.

The US now has street cred in the Middle East. It is now established that the US won't be ed with. You use that cred to show the Iranians you are indeed committed enough to use force when you deem it is necessary.

[Yonivore]

I say drop the Daisy Cutters, Smart Bombs, and Bunker Busters...just save a couple for the Ayatollahs.

[xrayzebra]

Tommy, that has been the message all along. You messed
with us in the past, with Mr. Clinton, but those times have
passed. We are here and we are staying, that the message
today. Damn the WMD, Damn any other excuse, we have
arrived and we are going to kick some butt. That is what
Bush has told them. When someone doesn't listen, get a
2X4, hit them upside the head and ask, gently, are you
listening! Bush told the UN today, you want respect,
earn it. We are not earning our respect. Ask Japan,
Germany and Italy. They may not like it, and they can
whine and moan, but they don't interfer. France, well,
they are France.

[exstatic]

We just sold a butt-load of smart bombs to Israel. Don't count on them sitting in a munitions dump for too terribly long.

That's exactly when I'll belive that Iran has nukes, and why I never believed that Iraq had WMDs. The Israelis don't mess around with their security (which is a LOT more affected by Iraq and their missiles than us, BTW), and they don't act for political or corporate reasons, only for their national defense. If Iraq had WMDs, the Mossad would have known about it before Dubyah could say gynocological love, and Israel would have bombed his ass again. It's sad that our "intelligence" has become a political mouthpiece.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I am of the mindset that it wouldn't take much to invade Iran.

There is unrest within Iran as it is, the people in that country just need a little gentle prodding to take down the Tehnran regime.

I suspect that once Iraq is stabilized, it will be used as a base of operations for exactly that.

[Nbadan]

Invading Iran would be a big mistake. Not only would it destabilize Iran it would also destabilize the rest of the Middle East. The coalition already doesn't have enough troops to regain control in both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. The last thing we need right now is to open up a new front in the war.

[spurster]

Among the other colossal mistakes that BushCo has made, by stretching out our troops over Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that we can barely threaten Iran or North Korea over their weapon programs. Aren't we in fact withdrawing some troops from South Korea? Before the Iraq war begin and our troops were ready to invade, Iraq was capitulating over weapon inspections. If we had not invaded Iraq, we could still pose a significant thread to Iran. Even short of invasion, we could have just made Saddam's box smaller without having the thankless job of trying to govern all of Iraq. The major downside would be Saddam still leading Iraq, though with less power. We would have had most of what we could reasonably achieve with much less cost. Also, we would have been better able to secure Afghanistan, which is still mostly a basket case.

Hindsight is easy, of course, but these questions were being asked before the war began and BushCo claimed to have it worked out.

[IcemanCometh]

Iran is a soverign nation and as a soverign nation has a right to defend itself and its citizens. Are we to assume that we and our allies (the few we have left) are the only ones with the right to bare arms. Are we now going to demand that France India Pakistan China Britain and Russia disarm? Will we then disarm our nuclear arsenal?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Why do libs constantly about North Korea?

So we pulled out some troops. BFD. If NK attacks, the first shot is gonna be tactical nukes aimed at our troop concentrations.

Second off, China is trying to become a part of the global economy, and every time in the last three years or so NK has acted up, China has smacked them across the head and said shut up.

North Korea is not a threat. China is the big dog in that part of the world, and it won't let some pedophile screw things up for it.

Our focus needs to be on the Middle East, and the administration thankfully has its focus on that very part of the world.