by Damozel | Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has stated that a strike against Iran would be 'extremely stressful' for the US. I'll say it would --- though of course, he's talking about a different sort of stress.
As BBC News' Justin Webb notes, it seems clear that Mullen does not want an attack on Iran at this time, and is fighting hard behind the scenes to prevent it. While he believes that Iran 'is on a path to get nuclear weapons and...that's something that needs to be deterred,' he thinks that 'the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure."' (BBC News) Like almost everyone, he wants a dialogue between the US and Tehran.
The BBC’s Justin Webb says it is clear that Mullen does not want to attack Iran, and that his remarks may suggest he is fighting hard behind the scenes to prevent it. While he believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News) He wants a dialogue between the US and Tehran.
I concluded some time ago that a strike was in the works, if only on the same principle that the gun you see in the first act of a play invariably goes off in — or before — the third. The Bush Administration has been beating the war drums for some time. The Israelis are making preparations. It seems to me that it’s more a question of when, than whether. Of course I hope I’m wrong.
Like many Americans, I often feel as if I’m in a car with no brakes, a drunk driver, and a steep downhill plunge directly ahead. I’m hoping someone with an exceedingly cool head will grab the wheel and steer us onto the safest course, wherever that might lie. It’s encouraging — a little, anyway — that Admiral Mullen is recommending talks between Iran and the White House.
He clearly doesn’t think that it’s in the interests of the US to open up another front in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. To do so, he said, would be ‘”extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict”.’
As to Bush’s position, the BBC article says: ‘[President Bush] has said all options were on the table but that military action would not be his first choice. His senior soldiers will be pleased to hear it.
But what about diplomacy? If Bush isn't open to a dialogue, who will do the talking?
A report from BBC's News' reporter in Tehran on a recent diplomatic initiative isn't that encouraging.
A June 15 report from the BBC News reporter in Tehran on a recent diplomatic initiative wasn't really all that encouraging. The EU sent their political envoy, Javier Solana, to Iran ‘to demonstrate the unity of the international community, in the face of Iran’s nuclear programme…. Mr Solana’s mission was to bring a new package of incentives, designed to encourage Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium - the process the West fears could be used to make a nuclear bomb.’ (BBC News)
The countries represented in the mission were ‘Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Nobody from the US.’(BBC News) The results seem to have been as ambiguous as one would expect.
While Mr. Solana was still in the midst of ‘delicately’ negotiating with Iran, Bush apparently jumped on the EU’s ‘charm offensive’ with two left feet, prematurely announcing that Iran had rejected the offer. (BBC News) In fact, they apparently promised to think about it. He based his conclusion on remarks by Iranian officials. Leyne observes:
It was more than just a misunderstanding on Mr Bush’s part.
What was so striking was the difference in tone. President Bush was quick to condemn the Iranian government at the earliest opportunity.
Leyne’s piece suggests reason to doubt whether the proposed package — which in addition to economic incentives include proposals ‘designed to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear programme’ if Iran will cease the uranium enrichment program — could succeed in any case under current conditions.
Is it really credible to believe, as this offer proposes, that the US would co-operate in helping to build a nuclear reactor in Iran, while the many other arguments between the two countries remain?
Would the US Congress really vote money for the project, while American generals complain of Iranian weapons being used against their troops in Iraq, and Israel complains of Iranian rockets being delivered to Hamas and Hezbollah?
Equally, for any deal to be attractive to Iran, it would surely have to include the lifting of American economic sanctions, much more important than the relatively light UN embargo.
A commitment from Washington that regime change is not an option, would also be crucial.(BBC News)
Are all such efforts to find a way out of the impending conflict doomed? As Leyne points out, the end of the year won’t only see the end of Bush; ‘Mr Ahmadinejad also faces a tough battle for re-election in a year’s time as well. So there could soon be different presidents in both Washington and Tehran.’ (BBC News)
RECENT POSTINGS
Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain
Were 'Brainwashing' Techniques Used on US Servicemen in Korea Part of the Training at Guantanamo?
Hitchens: 'If Waterboarding Isn't Torture, There's No Such Thing as Torture'
Bush Signs Supplemental Spending Bill
19-year-old Suspect Strangled in Jail
Real Bullets Used in French Hostage-Freeing Demo Instead of Blanks; 16 Wounded
Comments