U.S. downplays military option

The Pentagon has a plan for using nuclear bombs against Iran, a magazine report says.
COMBINED DISPATCH
WASHINGTON -- The White House sought Sunday to dampen the idea of a U.S. military strike on Iran, saying the United States is conducting "normal defense and intelligence planning" as President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution to Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
Administration officials -- from President Bush on down -- have left open the possibility of a military response if Iran does not end its nuclear ambitions. Several reports published Sunday said the administration was studying options for military strikes; one account raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.
Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike "completely nuts."
Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush, cautioned against reading too much into administration planning.
"The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes," Bartlett told The Associated Press on Sunday. "And those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran."
Risky option
Experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could inflame U.S. problems in the Muslim world.
According to Western analysts, Iran probably couldn't mount much of a defense against a U.S. air attack on its nuclear sites, but such action would likely rally moderate Iranians around their ultra-conservative leaders and strengthen Iranian resolve to resist efforts to make it give up its nuclear program.
Iran trumpeted the debut of new missiles during war games it conducted last week in the Persian Gulf as evidence that it's updated its military and that American attackers would face difficult odds if they were to try to bomb research centers.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and he was as "certain as [he] could be" that neither would the U.S. He said that he has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability that in turn could be used for nuclear weapons, but that there is "no smoking gun" to prove it and justify military action.
"I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic process," Straw said. "It takes a long time and is quite a subtle process. The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it."
Bush and European leaders worried by Iran's pursuit of the ability to enrich uranium -- a process that can produce both fuel for power plants and material for building bombs -- have said they want to resolve the conflict diplomatically. However, an article in this week's New Yorker quotes unnamed sources as saying that this winter the Pentagon presented Bush with the option of using bunker-buster nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," the president said last month in Cleveland. "That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally."
Bush priority
Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, and last month the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.
Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.
"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.