Posted on 08/31/2004 11:45:08 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
WASHINGTON - Iran, a country that has bedeviled the United States for decades, could prove to be the biggest foreign policy challenge facing whoever is the next president. The messy Iraq war and a spy scandal linking Pentagon and Israeli officials could complicate U.S. hopes of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Both President Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry say they want to use diplomacy — although with different approaches — to prevent what could be a nightmare scenario for the United States: a nuclear-armed, hostile Islamic state in the volatile Middle East.
But the United States' ability to sound an international alarm on Iran has been damaged after much of its intelligence on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons programs proved to be wrong. And its credibility could be further hurt by suspicions that a Pentagon official passed secrets about Iran to Israel.
Neither Bush nor Kerry advocates a pre-emptive strike on Iran. "The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.
Yet Iran, by many standards, poses a greater threat to the United States than Saddam ever did.
As they did with Iraq, U.S. officials suspect Iran has chemical and biological weapons. But Iran's nuclear program is much more advanced than Saddam's program was believed to be. U.S. officials say Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within a year and a nuclear weapon three years after that.
Iran says its nuclear program is for making electricity, not weapons.
The United States has long considered Iran the world's most active state sponsor of terror. Iran has supported militant Palestinian groups and U.S. officials say it has provided safe-haven for al-Qaida members.
And even though Iran is more democratic than other nations in the region, the United States continues to condemn its human rights record.
In 2001, Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea (news - web sites). Yet his administration has been divided on how to deal with it. Some, mostly in the Pentagon, favor a tougher approach. Others, mostly in the State Department, believe some accommodation is possible with Iranian moderates.
Tehran has offered some signs of seeking better relations with the United States, providing some cooperation on narcotics policy and in the war in Afghanistan (news - web sites). A State Department paper says relations with Iran "are frequently confused and contradictory due to Iran's oscillation between pragmatic and ideological concerns."
In a speech Monday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) said the Bush administration "has stood on the sidelines" while both Iran and North Korea "advanced their nuclear programs."
Kerry holds out some hope that a negotiated solution with Iran is possible. He said the United States and other nations should "call their bluff" by offering nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, then taking back the spent fuel so it can't be used for weapons.
If that process fails, the United States could try to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face sanctions.
Bush administration officials have suggested that it is too late for incentives. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said recently that Iran "has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not engaged."
The administration is expected to request Security Council action if the IAEA condemns Iran at a meeting Sept. 13.
Yet prospects for action at the U.N. are uncertain. Russia, which is building Iran's nuclear reactor, has a veto. Other council members also have trade relationships with Iran.
Bush has demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program, but it's unclear what he would do if Iran refuses and the United Nations (news - web sites) doesn't act.
Winning either domestic or international support for military action against Iran would be difficult.
Invading Iran has never seemed a credible option, said Robert Malley, an adviser to President Clinton (news - web sites) on Middle East issues. "I think it has become far less so after what has happened in Iraq," he said.
Yet Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he believes the next president will have little choice but to support the main Iranian opposition group, the MEK.
That group, however, is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations and few politicians openly support it.
And Tanter says support for either military action or for using the MEK could be undermined by the investigation into whether Larry Franklin, a Middle East analyst at the Pentagon, provided classified information on Iran to Israel.
"Those people who would say unleash the MEK could be accused now of following a Zionist agenda," Tanter said. "The Franklin flap is quite damaging. It plays into Iran's hand."
????????????????????????????????????
MKO can be used as a political tool especially when it comes to armed opposition.
Their support within Iran is more minimal than the ruling Mullahs.
They are terrorists!
I dislike the US-MEK cooperation and I don't think that the Terrorist thugs of MEK have any difference with the Mullahs' thugs in the streets of Tehran.
MKO(MEK) leader is some one who loves to be another Khomeini for Iran. I wonder how the USA can work & protect this terrorist band.
There is some thing wrong either with my UNDERSTANDING of politics or with the US war on terror!
I will not stand any MEK presence in today Iran!
Do they know who the Democrat candidate is?
| Iran Poses Vexing Problems for U.S.
That is precisely why George Bush should be re-elected... it's unclear what he would do. With Kerry, the Ayatollahs can be certain that some whining at the UN will be the worst of it. With Bush, they have to worry that he might send tanks. That is how poker is supposed to be played. |
Washington knows that that they are hated among ordinary Iranians.
So why they keep protecting them? I think MKO will be Iran's INC. But the difference is that we will fight the Terrorist MKO, if they want to come back to Iran as future leaders of Iran.
This makes me think of US honesty/dishonesty toward the Iranian people.
I do not need another US/UK made puppet government in Iran.
Do not worry, there will not be any foreign puppet government in Iran except for the present Arabic one.
I am not worried, I can defend myself against invaders, puppets and idiots like MKO. But what makes me worry is that NO ONE can guarantee that MKO is not gonna be IRAN's INC.
Do you know that if MKO finds out I m boldly talking like this about them, they will kill me???
Tell Saddam. He says what he means and he means what he says. He has said Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. That means they give up the attempt voluntarily, or their facilities go boom. No wiggle room. They never get them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Armageddon tired of all these "vexing problems." Heads it's Dear Leader Kim, tails it's the Atomic Ayatollahs. And now this guy tells us that there's no guarantee that the UN will act. Who knew?