Diplomacy sidelined as US targets Iran

[Guest guest]

They are building army bases all over Iraq

and plan to be there a long time. It has all

the earmarks of a possible Vietnam written all over it.

 

They have also been gearing up to

reinstate the army draft.

 

The Bush administration has also been beating the war drums

for a few months to build up support to have a go

against Iran. I expect more countries to follow.

 

On this present course, we can expect to be " at war " on a large scale soon. F.

 

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1279825,00.html

 

Diplomacy sidelined as US targets Iran

 

Simon Tisdall

Tuesday August 10, 2004

The Guardian

 

The US charge sheet against Iran is lengthening almost

by the day, presaging destabilising confrontations

this autumn and maybe a pre-election October surprise.

 

The Bush administration is piling on the pressure over

Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme. It maintains

Tehran's decision to resume building uranium

centrifuges wrecked a long-running EU-led dialogue and

is proof of bad faith.

 

The US will ask a meeting of the International Atomic

Energy Agency on September 13 to declare Iran in

breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a

prelude to seeking punitive UN sanctions.

 

Iran's insistence that it seeks nuclear power, not

weapons, is scoffed at in Washington. John Bolton, the

hawkish US under-secretary of state for arms control,

says there is no doubt what Tehran is up to. He has

hinted at using military force should the UN fail to

act. " The US and its allies must be willing to deploy

more robust techniques " to halt nuclear proliferation,

including " the disruption of procurement networks,

sanctions and other means " . No option was ruled out,

he said last year.

 

Last month in Tokyo, Mr Bolton upped the ante again,

accusing Iran of collaborating with North Korea on

ballistic missiles.

 

Israel, Washington's ally, has also been stoking the

fire. It is suggested there that if the west fails to

act against Iran in timely fashion, Israel could

strike pre-emptively as it did against Iraq's nuclear

facilities in 1981, although whether it has the

capability to launch effective strikes is uncertain.

 

 

The US has been pushing other countries to impose de

facto punishment on Iran. Japan has been asked to

cancel its $2bn (£1.086bn) investment in the Azadegan

oilfield and Washington has urged Russia to halt the

construction of a civilian reactor.

 

Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser,

said at the weekend there was a new international

willingness to confront Tehran, but declined to rule

out unilateral action if others did not go along.

 

That will fuel speculation in Tehran and elsewhere

that the Bush administration may resort to force, with

or without Israel, ahead of November's election.

Options include " surgical strikes " or covert action by

special forces.

 

Such a move would be a high-risk gamble for George

Bush. After the WMD fiasco, there would inevitably be

questions about the accuracy of US intelligence. In

the past Iran has vowed to retaliate. Although it is

unclear how it might do so, the mood in Tehran has

hardened since the conservatives won fiddled elections

last winter.

 

" I think we've finally got the world community to a

place, the IAEA to a place, that it is worried and

suspicious, " Ms Rice said in one of a string of

interviews with CNN, Fox News and NBC television. She

vowed to aim some " very tough resolutions " at Iran

this autumn. " Iran will either be isolated or it will

submit, " she said.

 

Officials in London say she exaggerated the degree of

unanimity on what to do next. Britain, France and

Germany are the EU troika which has pursued a policy

of " critical engagement " with Iran, despite US

misgivings.

 

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, has invested

considerably in resolving the issue, travelling to

Tehran on several occasions. A diplomatic collapse

would be a blow.

 

" There has been no such decision at all, " a Foreign

Office spokesman said yesterday of US efforts to take

the dispute to the security council. " The dialogue

[with Iran] is ongoing and the government still

believes that negotiation is the way forward at this

stage. " But Britain is in danger of being dragged down

a path of confrontation that it does not want to

travel.

 

Nuclear weapons are not Washington's only worry. The

US charges include Iran's perceived meddling in Iraq,

where the blame for the surge in Shia unrest is laid

partly at Tehran's door. It also takes exception to

Iran's ambiguous attitude to al-Qaida and Tehran's

backing for anti-Israeli groups such as Hizbullah. The

recent Kean report on 9/11 detailed unofficial links

between some of the al-Qaida hijackers and Iran.

 

Investigations into other terrorist attacks since

9/11, including this year's Madrid bombings and failed

plots in Paris and London, point to an Iran

connection, though the extent of any government

involvement is obscure.

 

While the Bush administration is set on a tougher line

there is no consensus even in Washington on what to

do.

 

A report by the independent Council on Foreign

Relations says since Iran is not likely to implode any

time soon, the US should start talking.

 

" Iran is experiencing a gradual process of internal

change, " the report says. " The urgency of US concerns

about Iran and the region mandate that the US deal

with the current regime [through] a compartmentalised

process of dialogue, confidence building and

incremental engagement. "

 

That suggestion was mocked by a Wall Street Journal

editorial as " appeasement " . Hawks say the nuclear

issue is too urgent to brook further delay. And

therein lies the rub. Bringing Iran in from the cold

is a time-consuming business. But the Bush

administration, as usual, is in a hurry.