Rooyesh

Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday. John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

“Iran is not a suicide nation,” he said. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don’t appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.” The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. “I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear,” he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. “There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,” Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “Let’s face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with (other) nuclear powers as well.” He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran. Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, “it’s not inevitable.” Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons. Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran’s nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

“War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can,” he said. “On the other hand, we can’t allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests.” He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the “axis of evil” nations, along with North Korea and Iraq. He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance. Abizaid’s comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran’s alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike. Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem. “I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they’ll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power,” he said. He described Iran’s government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East. “We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it,” he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon. The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an “axis of evil,” and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.

Source: AFP

The chief U.N. nuclear inspector urged Iran’s harshest critics Monday to learn from the Iraq invasion and refrain from “hype” about a possible military attack, saying force was an option of last resort. Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his International Atomic Energy Agency, invoked the example of Iraq in urging an end to the threats of force against Iran — most recently over the weekend by France.

“I would not talk about any use of force,” said ElBaradei, noting that only the Security Council can authorize such action. “There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons.” He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such weapons have been found.

“I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that require we go beyond diplomacy,” ElBaradei said, adding that his agency had no information “the Iran program is being weaponized.” “We need not to hype the issue,” he told reporters. On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country. Speaking on RTL radio, Kouchner said that if “such a bomb is made … we must prepare ourselves for the worst,” specifying that could mean a war.

Iranian state media lashed out at France on Monday, saying its officials have “become translators of the White House policies in Europe and have adopted a tone that is even harder, even more inflammatory and more illogical than that of Washington The U.S. has refused to rule out the possibility of force against Iran if it continues to enrich. Still, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the U.S. administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran. On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon sought to play down Kouchner’s comments, saying “everything must be done to avoid war.” “France’s role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution,” Fillon said, while at the same time calling for the “the most severe sanctions possible against the Iranian government if it continues” with its disputed nuclear program. Negotiations and two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium.

Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the U.S., its European allies and other world powers suspect the country is seeking nuclear weapons. Alluding to the U.S. and its Western allies, Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh accused unnamed countries of forcing the international community onto the “unjustified, illegal, deceptive and misleading path … by imposing restrictions and sanctions.” And he again ruled out scrapping Iran’s uranium enrichment program, telling delegates Iran would “never give up its inalienable and legal right in benefiting from peaceful nuclear technology.” ElBaradei called on nations critical of his last-ditch effort to entice Iran into revealing past nuclear activities that could be linked to a weapons program to wait until the end of the year — when the deadline for Iran to provide answers runs out. “By November or December we will be able to know if Iran is acting in good faith or not,” he said, suggesting that was the time to think of tougher diplomacy if needed — but not military action. He also urged the declared nuclear weapons states — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — to set the example and reduce the incentive to proliferate by initiating “deep cuts in their nuclear arsenal.”

Source: Associated Press

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail. Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran. Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured. Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces. Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon. The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”. He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation.

Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.” Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics. Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney. The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias. Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials. Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran. A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President. The source said: “When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board. “Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with.” The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the “open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war”.

Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen. The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran. “One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.”