Washington – The White House on Sunday sought to dampen the idea of a U.S. military strike on Iran, saying the United States is conducting “normal defense and intelligence planning” as President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Administration officials – from Bush on down – have left open the possibility of a military response if Iran does not end its nuclear ambitions. Several reports published Sunday said the administration was studying options for military strikes; one account raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran’s underground nuclear sites.
Britain’s foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike “completely nuts.” Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush, cautioned against reading too much into administration planning.
“The president’s priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes,” Bart lett said Sunday. “And those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration’s thinking on Iran.”
Experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could further inflame U.S. problems in the Muslim world.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, and that he was “certain” that neither would the U.S. He said he has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability that in turn could be used for nuclear weapons but that there is “no smoking gun” to prove it and justify military action.
Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the U.S. of any country in the world. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended his administration’s strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies.
“The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel,” the president said last month in Cleveland. “That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally.”
Vice President Dick Cheney told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC last month, “The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
The New Yorker magazine said the administration had increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack and that one option envisioned the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.
The New York Times quoted officials as rejecting the contention that the administration was considering the use of nuclear weapons.
Iran probably couldn’t mount much of a defense against a U.S. air attack on its nuclear sites, but such action would likely rally moderate Iranians around their ultra- conservative leaders and strengthen Iranian resolve to resist efforts to make it give up its nuclear program, Iranian and Western analysts in Tehran said.
Iran trumpeted the debut of new missiles during war games it conducted last week in the Persian Gulf as evidence that it has updated its military and that American attackers would face difficult odds if they were to try to bomb research centers.
The value of Iran’s new weapons lies largely in what they might do for Iranian national morale. Military analysts here, as well as in Washington and Moscow, say Teh ran’s new hardware is unreliable and ineffective. In addition, the Iranian air force is threadbare, and its air defenses are limited and antiquated.
Its navy, even with a new torpedo unveiled last week that supposedly travels in excess of 200 mph underwater, would be no match for the 27 U.S. warships based in and around the Persian Gulf.
But the size of Iran’s army would make an Iraq-style invasion, in the opinion of analysts, all but impossible. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is believed to have millions of troops at his disposal from the military, the elite Revolutionary Guard corps and the vast Basij paramilitary.
