Iran poses vexing problems for U.S.
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 08-31-2004 - 7:19pm |
I'm going to start a new thread to keep this separate from the Afghanistan discussion...however, at the bottom of this post are links back to the start of the discussion about Iran.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=US%20Iran%20Next%3F
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 · Last updated 2:31 p.m. PT
Iran poses vexing problems for U.S.
By KEN GUGGENHEIM
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- Iran, a country that has bedeviled the United States for decades, could prove to be the biggest foreign policy challenge facing whoever is the next president. The messy Iraq war and a spy scandal linking Pentagon and Israeli officials could complicate U.S. hopes of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Both President Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry say they want to use diplomacy - although with different approaches - to prevent what could be a nightmare scenario for the United States: a nuclear-armed, hostile Islamic state in the volatile Middle East.
But the United States' ability to sound an international alarm on Iran has been damaged after much of its intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs proved to be wrong. And its credibility could be further hurt by suspicions that a Pentagon official passed secrets about Iran to Israel.
Neither Bush nor Kerry advocates a pre-emptive strike on Iran. "The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.
Yet Iran, by many standards, poses a greater threat to the United States than Saddam ever did.
As they did with Iraq, U.S. officials suspect Iran has chemical and biological weapons. But Iran's nuclear program is much more advanced than Saddam's program was believed to be. U.S. officials say Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within a year and a nuclear weapon three years after that.
Iran says its nuclear program is for making electricity, not weapons.
The United States has long considered Iran the world's most active state sponsor of terror. Iran has supported militant Palestinian groups and U.S. officials say it has provided safe-haven for al-Qaida members.
And even though Iran is more democratic than other nations in the region, the United States continues to condemn its human rights record.
In 2001, Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. Yet his administration has been divided on how to deal with it. Some, mostly in the Pentagon, favor a tougher approach. Others, mostly in the State Department, believe some accommodation is possible with Iranian moderates.
Tehran has offered some signs of seeking better relations with the United States, providing some cooperation on narcotics policy and in the war in Afghanistan. A State Department paper says relations with Iran "are frequently confused and contradictory due to Iran's oscillation between pragmatic and ideological concerns."
In a speech Monday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said the Bush administration "has stood on the sidelines" while both Iran and North Korea "advanced their nuclear programs."
Kerry holds out some hope that a negotiated solution with Iran is possible. He said the United States and other nations should "call their bluff" by offering nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, then taking back the spent fuel so it can't be used for weapons.
If that process fails, the United States could try to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face sanctions.
Bush administration officials have suggested that it is too late for incentives. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said recently that Iran "has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not engaged."
The administration is expected to request Security Council action if the IAEA condemns Iran at a meeting Sept. 13.
Yet prospects for action at the U.N. are uncertain. Russia, which is building Iran's nuclear reactor, has a veto. Other council members also have trade relationships with Iran.
Bush has demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program, but it's unclear what he would do if Iran refuses and the United Nations doesn't act.
Winning either domestic or international support for military action against Iran would be difficult.
Invading Iran has never seemed a credible option, said Robert Malley, an adviser to President Clinton on Middle East issues. "I think it has become far less so after what has happened in Iraq," he said.
Yet Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he believes the next president will have little choice but to support the main Iranian opposition group, the MEK.
That group, however, is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations and few politicians openly support it.
And Tanter says support for either military action or for using the MEK could be undermined by the investigation into whether Larry Franklin, a Middle East analyst at the Pentagon, provided classified information on Iran to Israel.
"Those people who would say unleash the MEK could be accused now of following a Zionist agenda," Tanter said. "The Franklin flap is quite damaging. It plays into Iran's hand."
*****************
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=7089.3
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=7089.10







This reminds me of trying to see clarity in muddy water. The excerpt below relates to Franklin, but also to Iran. Just like with Iraq we are not getting the whole story.
Excerpt from Juan Cole's blog
http://www.juancole.com/109237286614040284
Israeli government officials and people like Dennis Ross at the AIPAC-funded "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" keep saying that this case makes no sense, since if Israel wanted to know something about US policy toward Iran, they could just make a call. This line of defense doesn't really help, though, since it suggests that there are no US government secrets to which Israel would be denied access on a simple request. That is an impossible proposition, and if it were true then it really would be the case that AIPAC runs the US government.
I continue to believe that Franklin was not seeking to give Israel information so much as he was soliciting input on the wording of the presidential directive on Iran. We have seen over and over again in the Bush administration how crucial it is to control key policy documents. Because Bush frankly is not a detail man, and cannot get his head around nuanced policy (he makes fun of the word), the ability of his smarter subordinates to control what paper is put in front of him is key to making things happen. Thus, the Neocons managed to put the false Niger uranium purchase story into the State of the Union address in 2003 despite the opposition of CIA director George Tenet, who knew by then that it was junk. Stephen Hadley, then the Neocon chief mole in the National Security Council, signed off on the insertion.
So, if you could work up a presidential directive on Iran that, e.g., threatened military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities at Bushehr, and could put it about the Pentagon that AIPAC and the Israelis had signed off on it, you might be able to make a US air attack on Bushehr happen. When the final draft was presented to Bush for his signature, Karl Rove (Bush's campaign chief) could be assured that Bush would get brownie points (big money and votes) from AIPAC if he signed. That is, in my view, why Franklin was willing to risk sharing confidential Pentagon policy documents with AIPAC and the Israelis. He was cultivating them as a key constituency for the aggressive policies he was formulating. Having them on board before the directive had been finalized would allow him to argue that it had to be shaped in a particular way in order to please AIPAC and the Israelis. If he could privately assure his superiors that Gilon approved, that would help him get his way in a Neocon-dominated part of the Pentagon.
The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) has a front organization, the "National Council of Resistance" or NCR. The NCR has been a significant source of charges about the Iranian nuclear program, and probably spies on Iran for both the Pentagon and Israel. (I am reasoning back from AIPAC's WINEP-associated "scholars" supporting the MEK, which is very odd unless there is a big quid pro quo). They probably exaggerate, playing a game similar to that of Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq. That would be another reason for which Franklin would try to stop its Iraq commanders being turned over to Iran by the US in return for top al-Qaeda leaders that Tehran holds."
How's your vision?
For more info see:
http://www.aaiusa.org/news/pipes05_20_03.htm
Edited 8/31/2004 7:58 pm ET ET by hayashig
So, if you could work up a presidential directive on Iran that, e.g., threatened military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities at Bushehr, and could put it about the Pentagon that AIPAC and the Israelis had signed off on it, you might be able to make a US air attack on Bushehr happen.
Lovely...
The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) has a front organization, the "National Council of Resistance" or NCR. The NCR has been a significant source of charges about the Iranian nuclear program, and probably spies on Iran for both the Pentagon and Israel. (I am reasoning back from AIPAC's WINEP-associated "scholars" supporting the MEK, which is very odd unless there is a big quid pro quo). They probably exaggerate, playing a game similar to that of Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq.
I continue to believe that Franklin was not seeking to give Israel information so much as he was soliciting input on the wording of the presidential directive on Iran. We have seen over and over again in the Bush administration how crucial it is to control key policy documents. Because Bush frankly is not a detail man, and cannot get his head around nuanced policy (he makes fun of the word), the ability of his smarter subordinates to control what paper is put in front of him is key to making things happen.
Spy probe scans neo-cons' Israel ties
By Jim Lobe
SEATTLE - The growing scandal over claims that a Pentagon official passed highly classified secrets to a Zionist lobby group appears to be part of a much broader set of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Pentagon investigations of close collaboration between prominent US neo-conservatives and Israel dating back some 30 years.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI02Ak02.html
Here is the link to the thread
Oh, I read it.
Powell: U.S. Wants U.N. Sanctions Vs. Iran
http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap/current/h56413406.html
Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States wants U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran after the Bush administration concluded the country is on the verge of enriching enough uranium for four nuclear weapons.
The new alarms were raised after the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency circulated a classified report among member governments about Iran's nuclear program.
Powell said the United States wants the U.N. Security Council to impose economic, political and/or diplomatic sanctions against Iran because of steps he believes Iran is taking toward developing nuclear weapons.
Speaking with reporters after a daylong trip to Panama, Powell said the administration will push hard for the IAEA to refer the Iran issue to the Security Council for action when the nuclear watchdog group holds a board meeting Sept. 13.
Acknowledging that many board members do not favor Security Council action against Iran at this time, Powell said he will consult with Germany, Britain and France and other IAEA board members about Iran in the coming days.
"Unless there are assurances that the international community can count on, I think it's appropriate that it (the Iran case) be referred to the Security Council," Powell said.
Earlier Wednesday, Undersecretary of Satate John R. Bolton, the administration's point man on nuclear proliferation threats, said: "We view with great concern" revelations in IAEA report that Iran is about to convert 37 tons of yellow cake uranium into uranium hexafluoride gas.
Bolton said that move combined with Iran's recent announcement that it intends to test its gas centrifuges "are further strong evidence of the compelling need to take Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council."
Uranium hexafluoride is spun in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which in turn can be used to generate power or make nuclear warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.
The United States will continue to urge other members of the U.N. agency's board of governors "to join with us in this effort to deal with the Iranian threat to international peace and security," Bolton said.
Another senior Bush administration official said after Bolton left for talks in Europe that Iran was positioning itself to produce 220 pounds of enriched uranium, enough for four nuclear weapons.
"You are talking serious business here," the official said in an interview in which his identity was withheld. Despite denials by Iran, he said the United States remained convinced that Iran was proceeding to develop nuclear weapons.
However, while Bolton indicated the Bush administration might move unilaterally to try to impose economic or other U.N. sanctions on Iran, there was little likelihood of such a move at least until after the IAEA board's Sept. 13 meeting in Vienna, Austria.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign criticized the Bush administration for going to war against Iraq on what it called discredited grounds instead of acting sooner to marshal U.S. allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The IAEA report shows "a leading state sponsor of terrorism is yet another step closer to nuclear weapons capability," said Susan Rice, Kerry's senior national security adviser. "Yet the Bush administration has stood on the sidelines while this nuclear program has advanced. ... It is past time for this administration to develop a tough and effective strategy for dealing with Iran."
U.N. inspectors have been looking for evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Such a finding could be critical to the Bush administration's effort to gain support from the other 34 members of the agency to seek U.N. Security Council action.
Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, said the report being circulated by the IAEA "continues to document the fact that through the past 18 years Iran has amassed a record of deception and denial about its nuclear activities."
"It will be up to the board to decide what the next steps are," Casey said.
Many of the questions the IAEA has about Iran's activities are outlined in its sixth and latest report, the spokesman said as he accused Iran of violating pledges to refrain from proliferation of nuclear technology and to "come clean" with the IAEA about its activities.
Henry Sokolski, a former Pentagon official who heads a private proliferation research group, said after reading the report that "we need to be backing the inspectors by putting much more pressure on Pakistan."
That is, Sokolski said in a telephone interview, Pakistan should clarify how much of the enriched uranium found in Iran came from Pakistan and how much was illicitly made by Iran.
Also, he said, "the problem with the IAEA isn't the inspectors, it is getting the board to confirm what the inspectors have found."