Posted on 03/13/2006 10:08:07 AM PST by freedom44
The United States is developing the concept of a "cold war" with Iran.
It would be a third way between trying to engage with the hard-line government there and attacking its nuclear facilities with the risk of major conflict.
The idea is that regime or policy change could be effected by the Iranian people themselves.
However such a cold war might turn into a hot war if Washington decided this approach would not stop Iran from developing the technology needed for a nuclear bomb.
Shift in UK approach
Britain is paying a supporting but limited role, with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw making a major speech on Iran saying: "Iran is going in the wrong direction" and "Iran and the Iranian people deserve better."
He said: "Our message is that we want the Iranian people to enjoy the benefits of civil nuclear power and we support their aspirations for a freer, more democratic and prosperous Iran."
Jack Straw said the Iranian people "deserve better"
This language does not go as far as the developing American policy. Mr Straw says, for example, that an attack on Iran is "inconceivable".
But it has echoes of it. And it represents a shift in the British approach.
President Bush himself heralded the Iran policy in his State of the Union speech in January when he said: "Our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."
That in turn followed his mission statement in November 2003 that he would promote "democracy and freedom in the Middle East".
Policy disagreements
But the policy is also born of political disagreement in the Bush administration about the way forward.
The old policy of engagement with Iran has run into the ground.
Even its advocates accept that they cannot get round the problem of Iran's method of government. Senior ayatollahs have a veto on reform and blocked reformist candidates in last year's election.
At the other end of the spectrum, those favouring military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations are having trouble in justifying a policy which would have huge consequences, adding to the problems the US is already facing in Iraq.
Iran desk
The third way is led by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice herself.
According to the Washington Post, Iran has "vaulted to the front of the US national security agenda".
Iran has so far remained defiant against western pressure
Ms Rice is, like Mr Straw, trying to draw a distinction between the Iranian government and people.
"Our problem is with the Iranian regime," she said to senators recently.
Iran is already subject to a trade boycott by the US, and as part of the new effort, the Post says, the State Department has created an Iran desk, increasing its staff working on Iran full time from two to 10.
There is to be more Farsi language training. Staff are being added in the listening post of Dubai.
A $75m (£43.5m) fund has been put forward to help Iranian non-governmental organisations and to increase Voice of America broadcasts from one to four hours a day, and eventually to 24.
Congress has cut some of this money but the thrust of the effort is plain to see.
How long Washington might wait over Iran is not at all clear.
After all, it took 50 years for the Soviet Union to fall.
Timetable uncertain
Nobody really knows how soon Iran might be able to acquire the technology needed for building nuclear weapons.
The Israelis have been talking of about a year before Iran reaches the "point of no return" which they define as an Iranian enrichment capability.
A senior British official also said recently that a year might give Iran time to become skilled in enrichment but that an actual bomb could be five years away. However the official offered no technical justification for these statements.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London issued a report in September 2005 which also said that Iran could, if it went all out, build a bomb by about 2010.
But the IISS was at the forefront of those saying that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, so it has a credibility problem.
And that assumes that Iran would go for a bomb, which it says it will not.
The "cold war" approach could buy time for Western policymakers.
Only a fool or an ignoramus would believe in the possibility of a cold war with a nuclear Islamic state.
The United States is developing a 'cold war'? More like the Iranian regime not responding and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the international community.
It might be cold to them right now, but I have a feeling it's gonna heat up sooner rather than later in order to head off any possibility of a cold war with these terrorists......
All these 'third way' clintonites need kicked to the curb.
"Only a fool or an ignoramus..."
In other words, the Beeb.
I don't think so. This is probably wishful thinking on the author's part.
Cold wars are good for the economy.
Only because the US listened to the Leftist traitors in the media and decided not to try and win. Then Reagan came in and said, "Here's my plan: we win, they lose."
And it was so.
I'd say there's been a cold war with Iran since Nov 1979 ... Watch for it to go Hot ...
There will be no cold war with Iran. Within 10 months there will be a massive air war against Iran that will last 4 to 6 weeks where we are not just going to destroy their nuclear facilities but the vast majority of their military infrastructure.
Mark my words.
Only if one considers a 750,000 degree Farenheit Teheran to be "cold".
Cold war only exists when the parties fear nuclear war.
I am not convinced that the mullahs fear nuclear war, so
attempting MAD based policies with them is foolish, at the very least.
IMHO a modern Iraq success will bring down Iranian's Mullahs.
Does anyone (except brain dead diplomats) believe that Iran's goal is a nuclear bomb?
I think the diplomats will dither until Iran has it and then use that fact as a reason not to act. The only solution is Israel but it's not the Israel it used to be. so even action by Israel is not certain.
I fear all of the West will attempt to buy time. and I think this may be a catastrophic mistake.
Plenty of both can be found in the ranks of western diplomats.
Your comments ring way too true.
Long before there is an air-war on Iran, there will be an economic embargo ... of gasoline. We could even do it unilaterally - use our navy to halt tankers, and use either airplanes or covert ground forces to cut the pipelines into Iran.
Consequence - the Iranian economy would crash within 30 days. And radio beamed into Iran would explain that this was aimed at the governing Mullahs rather than the people.
The Mullahs would then have to explain to the citizens of Iran why their policy to develop an atomic bomb actually benefits Iranian citizens.
It will then be the citizens of Iran who will have to make the decision - get rid of the mullahs, or side with them.
If the Mullahs ordered their Revolutionary Guard to attack the US positions in Iraq, they would remove the forces that are suppressing dissent, making a 2nd revolution possible ... in addition, the air war would start, starting with MOABs on their attack columns.
Recall Patton: "Give me the go-ahead, and I will have us at war with the Russians within 30 days, and make it look like it is their fault!"
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.