Going It Alone on Iran

Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright write in The Washington Post that Bush "signaled yesterday that he intends to pursue a strategy of gradually escalating financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Tehran, aimed not at starting a new war in the Middle East, his advisers said, but at preventing one.

"Bush believes Tehran will not seriously discuss limiting its nuclear ambitions or pulling back from its involvement in Iraq unless it experiences significantly more pressure than the United States and the international community have been able to exert so far, according to administration officials and others familiar with the president's thinking. . . .

"'The president does not want to be stuck -- and doesn't want his successor to be stuck -- between two bad choices: living with an Iranian nuclear weapon or using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons,' said Peter D. Feaver, who recently left a staff position on the National Security Council. 'He is looking for a viable third way, negotiations backed up by carrots and sticks, that could resolve the Iranian nuclear file on his watch or, failing that, offer a reasonable prospect of doing so on his successor's watch.'

"Even so, the administration's actions yesterday immediately rekindled fears among Democrats and other countries that the administration is on a path toward war. Bush's charged rhetoric in recent months, including a warning that Iran could trigger a 'nuclear holocaust,' and his close consultations with hard-liners -- such as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz -- have led many outside the White House to conclude that the president will order airstrikes to eliminate any Iranian nuclear capability. . . .

"Whether Bush will break from diplomacy and employ force is the great unknown, given his propensity to mix combative rhetoric with assertions that he is looking for a peaceful solution. Many of those who support continued diplomacy take heart from what they believe to be the skepticism of key advisers, including Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, about the usefulness of force."

The Washington Post editorial board buys the White House line and writes that "it is senseless and irresponsible for those who say they oppose military action -- including a couple of the second-tier Democratic presidential candidates -- to portray the sanctions initiative as a buildup to war by Mr. Bush. We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and it's clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military action. It is not they but those who oppose tougher sanctions who make war with Iran more likely."

But Mark Tran writes in the Guardian that "the latest sanctions - which come atop past measures stretching back to 1979 - signal US impatience with Iran and strengthen hardliners in both Washington and Tehran. . . .

"Analysts claim the Bush administration's latest move provides little encouragement for those in Tehran trying to avoid confrontation.

"'The move does not fit in with a desire to find a diplomatic solution,' said Dr Claire Spencer, head of the Middle East programme at Chatham House, the foreign policy thinktank.

"'It adds fuel to the fire and may be a sign of US impatience with the lack of an international consensus.

"'The administration knows it can't fix Iraq between now and the next election so it sees its big opportunity as going after Iran.'"

And Philip Stephens writes in his Financial Times column that "the White House once again seems hell-bent on being outwitted in the court of global opinion; and, maybe, on making a strategic miscalculation that could make the war in Iraq look like a sideshow. . . .