Bush's dilemma over Iran - and his final option

Bush's dilemma over Iran - and his final option By Laszlo Trankovits

Deutsche Presse Agentur
Published: Monday August 28, 2006

By Laszlo Trankovits, Washington-

While US President George W Bush is still betting on sanctions by the UN Security Council to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a moment of truth is drawing ever closer. Many in Bush's Republican party have long been sceptical of the effectiveness of economic and political sanctions that could be brought in the UN - or of efforts by European allies to negotiate a halt to uranium enrichment.

Those worries could soon prove justified, as the looming August 31 deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment could lead to an impasse among the council's members.

If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad maintains his nuclear course, and if the international community Bush has so far committed to does not react harshly enough, conservative hawks in Washington could once again gain the upper hand. US diplomats making overtures to the UN Security Council have privately doubted whether the organ can really deliver the kind of tough sanctions and the US administration is seeking. Many hawkish right wing commentators and politicians are waiting with baited breath for the ineffectiveness of diplomatic efforts pushed by Europeans to be borne out. "If violence is necessary to defeat the terrorists, the Iranians and the North Koreans, then it is regrettably necessary," said Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

"Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear programme by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military action," writes Charles Krauthammer, a proponent of the "neoconservative" philosophy many believe has long had the ear of the Bush administration. "There would be terrible consequences from such an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership from acquiring nuclear weapons," Krauthammer continues.

But right wing politicians and pundits are not the only ones floating the military option. Democrats such as Hillary Clinton have also made clear that Teheran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, by military force if necessary. The dispute with Iran is now threatening to leave Bush in an intractable position, as he has regularly insisted that the world cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the Islamic nation refusing to halt enrichment, conservatives in the US - and in Israel - are hoping concrete action will soon accompany the clear rhetoric. But the ongoing Iraq war has taken a heavy toll on the US military and finances.

As a result, suggestions of a military option against Iran have been met with scepticism in the US and Europe. A recent letter from 22 former US generals and government officials warned of the "disastrous consequences of an attack on Iran." The recent month-long Israeli offensive against Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah has also proven a reminder for Washington of the difficulties even a vastly superior military force can encounter against militants that are well-educated, highly motivated and hidden among a civilian population. Those lessons have led military experts to ponder just what a war with Iran - with a population of 68 million and a military force not to be taken lightly - might look like.

But there is a so far unheralded third option for Bush - next to sanctions-laden diplomacy at the UN and a painful military engagement. Democrats in particular - including former secretary of state Henry Kissinger - believe the US administration should give up on the idea of regime change in Iran, and instead offer the security guarantees and economic incentives that might tempt the Islamic nation out of isolation.

The major powers in June offered Iran economic incentives, including delivery of a light-water reactor and the long-term provision of nuclear fuel, in return for suspension of uranium enrichment. But the package lacked "a clear US commitment to live with the government in Tehran, even as we compete with it politically and morally," writes George Perkovich in the Wall Street Journal. Such an overture would at least give the international community a chance to gleam whether the Mullahs might heed their nation's interests after all, and put aside their conflict with the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan - the US and Israel respectively - the Wall Street Journal writes. But for a president that counts Iran as part of an "axis of evil," that option is one of the least desirable.

© 2006 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agenteur