Share

Strike on Iran Still Possible, US Tells Israel

by: Paul Richter and Julian E. Barnes  |  The Los Angeles Times

photo
During Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington on July 29, he met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A possible attack on Iran was a main topic of discussion in Barak's meetings with administration officials. (Photo: Reuters)

    Washington - Bush administration officials reassured Israel's defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

    In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.

    At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb.

    "Is there a difference of emphasis? It certainly looks as though there is," said a senior American Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the sensitive talks.

    U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is enriching uranium with the aim of building nuclear weapons.

    Tehran says that it is engaged in a peaceful enrichment program for civilian energy purposes.

    Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said in an interview that U.S. officials have often made it clear to Israeli officials that Washington prefers to try to mitigate the threat from Tehran by applying economic pressure.

    "The military option, although always available, is not our preferred route," Morrell said.

    "We have made that point clear to them and the world in our public statements and private meetings."

    Barak left Israel for Washington amid reports in the Israeli press that he would try to talk the Bush administration out of what many Israelis perceive as a more conciliatory policy toward Iran.

    On Tuesday, the Israeli Defense Ministry released a statement saying that Barak had told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that "a policy that consists of keeping all options on the table must be maintained."

    Speaking to reporters in Washington, Barak said that there remains time for "accelerated sanctions" to try to persuade Iran to abandon the nuclear program.

    Israeli officials were concerned in December when a key U.S. intelligence report concluded that Iran had abandoned an effort to build a nuclear bomb. They also have noted with concern comments this month by Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an Israeli airstrike on Iran would further destabilize the Middle East and compound the strain on overworked U.S. forces.

    Also this month, in a rare move toward engagement with Tehran, a senior U.S. diplomat took part in international talks in Geneva about the nuclear program.

    And U.S. officials have floated a proposal for opening a low-level diplomatic office in Tehran.

    These gestures have taken place at a time of intensifying discussion in Israel about the wisdom of an Israeli military attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office.

    A senior State Department official said Tuesday that Israel "is a sovereign state and we understand that they view this as an existential threat. And we take the threat that's posed by Iran seriously as well."

    But the official, who asked to remain unidentified in keeping with diplomatic rules, said the administration is "pursuing the strategy we believe is the right one."

    Gates, in an hourlong meeting with Barak, told the minister that the United States intends to consider providing radar to Israel that can detect ballistic missiles launched from Iran and supplying weapons to counter rocket attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, according to a senior Defense official.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I am sure that the American

I am sure that the American people are getting sick and tired of Israel presuming on the friendship of the United States. Why does Israel assume that we have to do Their bidding. Just because they have used many millions of the billions in aid money we have provided to Israel, to spread around in support of Certain members of our government to do as they say do, is no longer going to suffice. That may be a broad statement to make, but it surely appears, from this 'average ' but not dumb American's viewpoint, to be the case. Israel had best be Very Careful that they do not give a war and no one attends...but Them.

Everyone remembers the

Everyone remembers the Jewish Holocaust. Few remember that the Jews were not the only people persecuted, rounded up in concentration camps (kind of like Git-mo) and tortured and killed. Few remember that there were Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druse already in Palestine when European Jews decided it was only fair that they take control of their "home land", even though NONE of them had ever lived there. Few ever knew that Ariel Sharon was a satchel bomber long before Arabs got into that game, and has bragged about blowing up restaurants and such in support of his cause to "liberate" Israel, forcing those who had lived there for centuries off that land. No wonder so many are so angry at us, and at Israel. What was done was nothing but injustice writ large against a poor and downtrodden people. And we continue to perpetuate the LIE. So... would you like to talk about WHY so much of the Arab world is so angry at us? Let's start THERE. ~~ Lane Baldwin - alifewithspirit.com

"The military option,

"The military option, although always available, is not our preferred route," Morrell said. Geez, you'd never know that, what with two active wars going on and 700-plus military bases throughout the world! Oh, did I forget the creation of the new military command AFRICOM, designed to keep that oil flowing out of Africa? Or maybe I forgot to mention the clandestine special ops being conducted inside Iran by the US? How about unilaterally crossing into Pakistan to bomb "terrorists"? We are spending fully one-half of our GDP on the military and the phony "War on Terror" while the country falls into ruin and the US dollar hits the spitoon. Meanwhile the "Federal" Reserve is ginning up more paper to bail out the bankers and brokers who got caught upside down in the housing debacle. So let's just get on with it and bomb Iran with the help and encouragement from our good friends the Israelis! After all, they only have about 200 nukes on hand, so we surely can't let the Iranians build one! Hey, what kind of an "Empire" is it if you don't have plenty of wars to fight? Defense contractors are people too. They have bills to pay, just like the rest of us -- it takes a lot of loot to buy legislators these days! Let's put our shoulder to the wheel and pitch in for the good old USofA war machine!

Scarily enough the Bush

Scarily enough the Bush administration isn't just trying to run out the clock in its last days but to fulfill every item on its agenda wishlist... or should I say 'Cheney's wishlist'? Clearly boundaries must be re established that prevents the Presidency from unilaterally starting or in this case ...expanding wars. An expanded war theatre would be disastrous. We're far too stretched even with the partial shiffting of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. And an attack upon Iran could expand the conflict to involve other countries...like Syria and the Hezbollah in Lebannon. Any presumption that such military strikes would remain limited is reckless in thinking. The current far right gov't in Tel Aviv expects far much from the US. Their clamouring for a military solution should be firmly rebuked... unfortunately far too few american politicians reject AIPAC's influence openly. Obama isn't going to be the one to change US policy of charting it's own course of action independant of the Likud Party's wishes. But hopefully soon we'll hear more from the moderate anti war israelis... as I'm sure the world is growing far too war weary from all this endless conflict.