- Growing view that strike, by Israel or US, will happen
- 'Sweet spot' for Israeli action identified as September-October
- •White House remains determined to give sanctions time
By
Chris McGreal
 |
| Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed this week that Iran had loaded its first domestically made fuel road into a nuclear reactor. Photograph: AP |
The
president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is
determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial
blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's
already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to
pressure Tehran.
But there is
a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the
Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail,
and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as
well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have
been tested.
"The
White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It
does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle
East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like
sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't
going to do anything.
"Sanctions
are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it's hard to see
how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option."
The White
House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use
of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis
is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions.
But
long-held doubts among US officials about whether the Iranians can be enticed
or cajoled into serious negotiations have been reinforced by recent events.
"We
don't see a way forward," said one official. "The record shows that
there is nothing to work with."
Scepticism
about Iranian intent is rooted in Iran's repeated spurning of overtures from
successive US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack
Obama, who appealed within weeks of coming to office for
"constructive ties" and "mutual respect" .
President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim this week that Iran loaded its first
domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor, and Iran's threat to cut oil
supplies to six European countries, were read as further evidence that Tehran
remains defiantly committed to its nuclear programme. That view was
strengthened by the latest Iranian offer to negotiate with the UN security
council in a letter that appeared to contain no significant new concessions.
If Obama
were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to
order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent
reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.
Earlier this
month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he
thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But
other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a
"sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and
practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral
assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that
as a "best guess".
However, the
Americans are uncertain as to whether Israel is serious about using force if
sanctions fail or has ratcheted up threats primarily in order to pressure the
US and Europeans in to stronger action. For its part, the US is keen to ensure
that Tehran does not misinterpret a commitment to giving sanctions a chance to
work as a lack of willingness to use force as a last resort.
American
officials are resigned to the fact that the US will be seen in much of the
world as a partner in any Israeli assault on Iran – whether or not Washington
approved of it. The administration will then have to decide whether to, in the
parlance of the US military, "pile on", by using its much greater
firepower to finish what Israel starts.
"The
sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking
this issue seriously," said one official. "The focus is on
demonstrating to Israel that this has a chance of working. Israel is sceptical
but appreciates the effort. It is willing to give it a go, but how long will it
wait?"
Colin Kahl,
who was US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East until
December, said: "With the European oil embargo and US sanctions on the central
bank, the Israelis probably have to give some time now to let those crippling
sanctions play out.
"If you
look at the calendar, it doesn't make much sense that the Israelis would jump
the gun. They probably need to provide a decent interval for those sanctions to
be perceived as failing, because they care about whether an Israeli strike
would be seen as philosophically legitimate; that is, as only having happened
after other options were exhausted. So I think that will push them a little
further into 2012."
The White
House is working hard to keep alive the prospect that sanctions will deliver a
diplomatic solution. It has pressed the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, to quieten the belligerent chatter from his own cabinet about an
attack on Iran. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, general Martin
Dempsey, was dispatched to Jerusalem last month to talk up the effect of
sanctions and to press, unsuccessfully, for a commitment that Israel will not
launch a unilateral attack against Iran.
Dennis Ross,
Obama's former envoy for the Middle East and Iran, this week said that
sanctions may be pushing Tehran toward negotiations.
But in other
parts of the administration, the assumption is that sanctions will fail, and so
calculations are being made about what follows, including how serious Israel is
in its threat to launch a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear installations,
and how the US responds.
But Iran's
increasingly belligerent moves – such as the botched attempts, laid at Tehran's
door, to attack Israeli diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia – are
compounding the sense that Iran is far from ready to negotiate.
Feeding in
to the considerations are the timing of the American election, including its
bearing on Israeli thinking, as well as the pace of Iranian advances in their
nuclear programme.
Obama has
publicly said that there are no differences with Israel on Iran, describing his
administration as in "lock step" with the Jewish state.
But the US
and Israel are at odds over the significance of Iran's claim to have begun
enriching uranium at the underground facility at Fordow, near the holy city of
Qom, and therefore the timing of any military action.
Israel's
defence minister, Ehud Barak, has warned that Iran cannot be allowed to
establish a "zone of immunity" at Fordow where it is able to work on
a nuclear weapon deep underground protected from Israel's conventional weapons.
Earlier this month, Barak said Israel must consider an attack before that
happens.
The
Americans say there is no such urgency because the facility is just one among
many Tehran needs to build a nuclear weapon, and that other sites are still
vulnerable to attack and sabotage in other ways. The US also has a more
powerful military arsenal, although it is not clear whether it would be able to
destroy the underground Fordow facility.
Kahl said
part of Washington's calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously
contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the US and
Europe into confronting Tehran.
"It's
not that the Israelis believe the Iranians are on the brink of a bomb. It's
that the Israelis may fear that the Iranian programme is on the brink of
becoming out of reach of an Israeli military strike, which means it creates a
'now-or-never' moment," he said.
"That's
what's actually driving the timeline by the middle of this year. But there's a
countervailing factor that [Ehud] Barak has mentioned – that they're not very
close to making a decision and that they're also trying to ramp up concerns of
an Israeli strike to drive the international community towards putting more
pressure on the Iranians."
Israeli
pressure for tougher measures against Tehran played a leading role in the US Congresss
passing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's financial system and oil sales.
Some US and European officials say those same sanctions have also become a
means for Washington to pressure Israel not to act precipitously in attacking
Iran.
The presidential
election is also a part of Israel's calculation, not least the fractious
relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, who has little reason to do the US
president any political favours and has good reason to prefer a Republican in
the White House next year.
There is a
school of thought – a suspicion, even – within the administration that
Netanyahu might consider the height of the US election campaign the ideal time
to attack Iran. With a hawkish Republican candidate ever ready to accuse him of
weakness, Obama's room to pressure or oppose Netanyahu would be more limited
than after the election.
"One
theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support
an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in
a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US
gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre."
Obama is
also under domestic political pressure from Republican presidential contenders,
who accuse him of vacillating on Iran, and from a Congress highly sympathetic
to Israel's more confrontational stance.
Thirty-two
senators from both parties introduced a resolution on Thursday rejecting
"any policy that would rely on efforts to 'contain' a nuclear
weapons-capable Iran". The measure was dressed up as intended to protect
the president's back, but it smacked of yet more pressure to take a firmer
stand with Iran.
One of the
sponsors, senator Joe Lieberman, said that he did not want to discount
diplomatic options but if the president ordered an attack on Iran he would have
strong bipartisan support in Congress. Other senators said there needed to be a
greater sense of urgency on the part of the administration in dealing with Iran
and that sanctions are not enough.
Others are
critical of sanctions for a different reason. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said
this week he fears sanctions are less about changing Tehran's policy than
laying the ground for military action. He warned that "the latest drum
beat of additional sanctions and war against Iran sounds too much like the
lead-up to the Iraq war".
"If the
crippling sanctions that the US and Europe have imposed are meant to push the
Iranian regime to negotiations, it hasn't worked," he said. "As the
war of words between the United States and Iran escalates it's
more critical than ever that we highlight alternatives to war to avoid the same
mistakes made in Iraq."
@ The Guardian
@ The Guardian
