Going It Alone on Iran

Paul Richter writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The Bush administration's new package of sanctions against Iran widens the gap between the United States and its European allies over how to confront Tehran.

"For two years, the administration has sought to work closely with Europeans and other world powers, convinced that collective action offered the best chance to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

"But efforts to push through a third round of United Nations sanctions snagged and prospects for a new international coalition to impose economic penalties appear unlikely, so the administration decided to strike out on its own Thursday. . . .

"Advocates say this approach will hit the Iranian elite where it most hurts. But it also puts the United States on a separate track from the Europeans. And U.S. intervention in European business interests could deepen the unwillingness of European countries that already are reluctant to take part in any U.S. actions."

Jay Solomon and Glenn R. Simpson write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "A number of diplomats also said Washington's aggressive action risked ripping apart the countries working for a third round of international sanctions against Iran through the United Nations. Russia and China, which hold veto power at the U.N. Security Council, are allies or business partners of Iran and have resisted the drive for new U.N. sanctions.

"'I think running around like a lunatic -- with a razor and waving a red banner -- isn't the best way to solve this kind of problem,' Russian President Vladimir Putin said in response to the announcement. Questioned by reporters in Portugal, where he is attending a summit of Russian and European Union leaders, he added that sanctions 'worsen the situation, leading it to a dead end.'"

Jitendra Joshi writes for AFP that "analysts questioned the sanctions' effectiveness in the absence of concerted UN action against Iran. . . .

"Through ever-stricter sanctions, Washington has tried and failed to exert pressure on Iran ever since the US embassy hostage crisis that erupted following the 1979 Islamic revolution. . . .

"Professor Paul Pillar, an Iran expert at Georgetown University, said the Bush administration seems to be trying to close down its successor's options on Iran, as sanctions are much harder to lift than they are to impose.

"The White House now has 'a posture of confrontation' with Iran, and hardliners in both Washington and Tehran are 'bringing out the worst in each other,' he said."

War or No War?

AFP reports: "The White House on Friday flatly rejected any parallels between the run up to the war in Iraq and its current rhetoric on Iran, adding that it was 'absolutely committed' to the diplomatic path but refusing to take military force off the table.

"'I don't think there are any parallels to draw at all,' spokesman Tony Fratto said amid concerns that escalating warnings from Washington resemble the tough message to Baghdad ahead of the March 2003 invasion."