Iran-U.S.A

[Rasputin]

The U.S. Tries Quiet Diplomacy on Iran

Now that Iran has officially missed the UN Security Council deadline for stopping its uranium enrichment work, Western leaders have decided on a deliberately muted response. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in meetings in Berlin Wednesday with European, Russian and United Nations diplomats, is sticking to the agenda — easing Israeli-Palestinian tensions, and keeping her remarks low-key. Her European counterparts also hope to pass the day without a drama over Tehran's defiance. The reason is purely tactical." We don't need a war of rhetoric," says a European diplomat.

Iranian leaders have been making conciliatory noises lately. Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, in Vienna to meet with International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed El Baradei, said Tuesday that Iran was "looking for ways and means to start negotiations." Still, avowed radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran was willing to freeze its enrichment program and return to talks only if the US and the other members of the nuclear club also stopped enriching uranium." Do you believe that's a serious offer?" White House spokesman Tony Snow scoffed.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prepares to release a report which confirms Iran's non-compliance, Rice and her European counterparts have sworn off strident words that that could play into Tehran's hands, since its strategy has been to portray the big industrialized powers as heavy-handed, unjust and biased against developing nations that aspire to the nuclear club. Iran, says former State Department proliferation chief Robert Einhorn," has been reasonably effective in driving wedges" between the industrialized and developing worlds.

That's why, when she emerged from a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Rice tried to extend the olive branch to Tehran, stressing her desire to meet face to face with the regime's representatives. "In May of last year we offered, the Bush Administration offered, to reverse 27 years of American policy to engage in the context of the six with our Iranian counterparts," she told reporters. "I've said I would meet my Iranian counterpart anyplace, anywhere, anytime should the Iranians decide to suspend their activities. And so that and the fact that there is a very positive package that the six countries have put together that should incent Iran to engage in a positive way with the international community. I think we're all still hopeful that the day is going to come when the Iranians decide to pursue that course, rather than one of confrontation."

Despite the muted voices, US and Western diplomats have already begun discussing a second sanctions resolution to be tabled in the Security Council. It won't be sweeping or harsh: last winter, Russian and Chinese objections to stringent sanctions proposed by the US and Europeans locked up the Security Council for two months of agonizing debate. A watered down resolution finally passed Dec. 23.

But it passed unanimously, and to the Western nations, that's far more important than what it actually said. Officials involved in the process say that this time, they've learned to avoid the perils of over-reaching. So the strategy hammered out by the Rice team and its European counterparts is to propose very modest, incremental sanctions that will have little actual economic impact on Iran. "What we don't want to do is have a repeat of last time," says a European diplomat." After much pain, we kept the international community together, which is one of the most powerful levers that we have."

[Rasputin]

In a rare move, for the first time since the repeal by Congress in 1971 of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorising the Vietnam War, the House of Representative has voted 246-to-182 formally repudiating President Bush's decision to send 21,500 new combat troops to Iraq. Below Farhang Jahanpour examines the background to this momentous decision.

The events of the past few months in the United States have been as bewildering as they have been tragic. The mid-term elections held in November had shown that the majority of Americans had decisively turned against President George Bush's failed policies and the threadbare plots of the Neoconservatives. The Democrats' control of both the House and the Senate had provided the hope of a change of direction or at least a course correction.

The unexpected dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld, one of the main architects of the Iraq war, and his replacement by pragmatic Richard Gates, who had been a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and the sudden forced resignation of the Neoconservative UN Ambassador John Bolton had provided grounds for optimism. That feeling of optimism was further strengthened by the long awaited and much anticipated bipartisan Iraq Study Group's report. The Iraq Study Group, led by two respected veteran politicians, the former Republican Secretary of State James Baker and the former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, included some of the most experienced and prominent US politicians.

Domestic and Foreign Reversals
Having suffered major reversals in Iraq and in mid-term elections, President Bush and members of his Administration had indicated that they would welcome that report. Coming on the heels of the Administration's humiliating defeats at home and abroad, the success of the report seemed to be a certainty. As the level of chaos and killings in Iraq had increased, leading to a state of virtual civil war, even the president and some of his staunchest allies could no longer repeat the mantra of 'staying the course'. With the number of US casualties exceeding three thousand – not to mention over half a million Iraqis killed and the creation of two million refugees – the majority of Americans had turned against the continuation of the war.

According to a recent CNN poll, only 20 per cent of the American people supported it, a huge drop compared to the 75 per cent that had supported it at the beginning of the invasion when it was wrongly linked to the war against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it seemed that the time had come for the US Administration to take a fresh look at the realities and cut its losses, and also save Iraq from the continuing catastrophe.

Baker-Hamilton Report
The report did not pull any punches. After painting a dismal picture of America's options in Iraq, the report stated that there was an urgent need for a complete change of direction. It pointed out that the continuation of US policies in Iraq and the region would at best only postpone the most probable scenario: Iraq’s collapse into a failed and fragmented state, an intensifying and long-lasting civil war, as well as an increased risk of foreign meddling in Iraq. It pointed out that the US forces were seen as occupiers and not as liberators and their continued presence in Iraq acted only as a provocation and intensified the insurgency.

What was needed was a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors dealt with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. dealt with the region as a whole.

The report advocated an end to unilateral policies and a new multinational effort to achieve a new political compact between all relevant Iraqi constituents.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group made three important recommendations:

1. Withdrawal of US forces from Iraq;

2. A new U.S. regional strategy, including engagement with Iran and Syria, and an end to efforts at regime change;

3. Revitalisation of the moribund Arab-Israeli 'peace process'.

Supporting the findings of the report, Senior Fellow of the Centre for American Progress Lawrence J. Korb testified before the House Armed Services Committee, and spoke about many mistakes over the past 46 months that had created the current quagmire. He said:

1. The United States cannot solve Iraq’s problems militarily; resolving Iraq’s civil war requires a new political strategy.
2. Open-ended U.S. combat deployment fosters a culture of dependency.
3. The absence of a new diplomatic and political strategy is the missing link to Iraq’s neighbours playing a more constructive and necessary role.
4. The consequences of continued chaos in the Middle East would be disastrous.
5. Military escalation will not tackle the core problems with Iraq’s security forces and would likely exacerbate the situation.
6. An escalation in Iraq prevents soldiers from being re-deployed to other places.
7. Those who support military escalation lack credibility due to the fact that they are the ones responsible for this misadventure.
8. Congress must not let the president continue to ignore the American people and must exercise its constitutional powers to halt the escalation.
9. The United States must change course now rather than heed the dictates of a president who has continued to mislead us about this war.

The Baker-Hamilton report pointed out that President Bush's desire to bring peace to the Middle East, while at the same time providing total backing for all Israeli expansionist policies while pursuing a hostile policy towards Iran and Syria, were contradictory and unachievable. Senior members of the Congress from both parties urged the president to talk to Iran.

According to a recent poll, three-quarters of the American public also want the president to talk to Iran (including 72 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats). Even Secretary of Defence Robert Gates—when he was the co-chair of a 2004 Council of Foreign Relations task force—urged the president to talk to Iran. Three high-ranking former US generals opposed a troops surge in Iraq and warned against an attack on Iran.

A much-anticipated US intelligence report warned that the rising violence in Iraq could permanently tear the country apart and, in the worst case, create a state of anarchy with no legitimate authority that would combine "extreme ethnosectarian violence with debilitating intragroup clashes."

Rejection of Baker-Hamilton Report
While everybody was waiting to see how President Bush would implement that important bipartisan report, the president did exactly the opposite.

Far from withdrawing forces from Iraq, he ordered 21,500 extra troops to be sent to Baghdad and to Anbar province. Instead of initiating a meaningful dialogue with Iran and Syria, he adopted an even more hostile policy towards those two countries and openly called on American troops to arrest or kill Iranians that they suspected of involvement in helping the insurgents in Iraq.

Meanwhile, simultaneously with the president's new directive, US forces attacked an Iranian liaison office in Erbil that was functioning with the knowledge and approval of the Iraqi government, and took five Iranian diplomats hostage. The Iraqi foreign minister said that the office was due to be formally turned into a consulate, the work that it had been doing in practice for the past 15 years. The illegal arrest of Iranian diplomats resulted in open condemnation by the Iraqi president and prime minister, as well as by the leader of the Iraqi Kurdistan, Mas'ud Barzani. Earlier on, US forces had arrested three Iranian diplomats who had been invited to Iraq by the Iraqi president during his visit to Tehran, and after extensive protests US forces released them.

[Rasputin]

A Neoconservative Plan
While all this might have come as a complete surprise to all those who were looking for a saner and more even-handed US policy in the Middle East, those who were familiar with the stranglehold that the neocons and the pro-Israeli lobbies have imposed on the Bush Administration were not surprised at all.

As soon as the contents of the Baker-Hamilton report were leaked, the neocons started a feverish campaign to undermine it. A leading Neoconservative ideologue, Frederick W. Kagan of American Enterprise Institute prepared a report entitled "Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq." He argued:

* Victory is still an option in Iraq. America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion, and more than 1 million soldiers and marines can regain control of Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion. Victory in Iraq is vital to America’s security. Defeat will lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism.

* Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America’s will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled.

He further argued that all the three courses of action that had been proposed would fail: 1) Withdraw immediately; 2) Engage Iraq’s neighbours, and 3) Increase embedded trainers dramatically. He suggested a fourth option: Increase American forces and crush opposition. He advocated a 'surge' of between 20,000-30,000 extra troops to directly fight the insurgents.

When one reads President Bush's major policy speech on 10 January or his State of the Union address, one will see that his policy is taken almost word for word from the above-mentioned document. All this shows that while the Neoconservatives are down, they certainly are not out and still exert a pernicious influence on the US Administration.

It is interesting that the Iraqi government was not consulted regarding the new strategy. President Jalal Talabani openly admitted that he had no idea of the new American plan. It is also clear that the Americans have no intention of leaving Iraq, as was openly admitted by Robert Gates who said that American forces would remain in Iraq for a long time.

The important point to bear in mind about the 'surge' of forces in Iraq is that it is not intended solely to fight the insurgents – there had been at least two such surges in the past and both had failed – but to intensify the pressure on Iran and Syria.

False intelligence on Iran
In the same way that false intelligence was used prior to the invasion of Iraq in order to establish a link between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'ida, the neocons are busy doing the same in the case of Iran and Syria. Without providing any evidence, President Bush linked the Sunni insurgency with al-Qa'ida and Syria, and the Shi'i insurgency with Iran. He again linked the situation in Iraq with the events of 9/11. In the State of the Union address the president said: "This war is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us." He continued: "What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices."

More than 90 per cent of attacks on US forces have come from Sunni insurgents. Iraqi officials allege that the Sunni insurgents receive most of their support from Jordan and Saudi Arabia, yet President Bush singled out Iran for blame as a country that supported Iraqi insurgents. The overwhelming majority of those who are killed in suicide bombings and attacks are in Shi'i districts, yet President Bush blamed Iran for helping the Shi'is.

Leading neocons jumped on the bandwagon. Senator Joseph Lieberman repeated the threat-conflation mantra on Meet the Press on January 14. Trying to rally support for an escalation of the war in Iraq, he appealed to “the American people, who have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered [sic] government in Iran.” National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley declared the war in Iraq to be part of “a broad struggle going on in the Middle East between the forces of freedom and democracy and the forces of terror and tyranny—and Iran is behind a lot of that.”

Ominous signs of a new conflict
These threats have not remained purely at the level of rhetoric, but there are ominous signs of preparations for a conflict, this time involving Iran. These are some of the measures taken by the Bush administration in recent weeks. It has:

* Deployed additional aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf.
* Deployed US Patriot missiles to the Arab states in the Persian Gulf.
* Deployed F16 fighter planes to the Incirlik base in Turkey.
* Increased the number of US nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf.
* There has been increased rhetoric and provocation against Iran.
* It has cut off two of Iran’s largest banks from the U.S. financial system.
* Admiral Fallon has been named Centcom commander, a useful person in case of a naval attack on Iran.
* It has arrested several Iranian diplomats in Iraq in December and in January, arrested six more in a raid on an office opened in Kurdistan in 1992 that has been functioning as an Iranian consulate.
* Furthermore, Israeli pilots have undergone training for Iran bombing missions.
* In his January 10 speech to the nation the president said: “We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Suspicions about the new plan
The exaggerated rhetoric also seems to signal a more sweeping intent. Official statements parrot claims prominent for the past year in the Neoconservative press, bizarrely linking Iran to September 11 and the president’s declared “war on terror.” This feverish campaign has even worried many US senators and congressmen. Senator Bill Nelson (D- FL) told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a January 11 Senate hearing: “I have supported you and the administration on the war, but I cannot continue to support the administration's position...I have not been told the truth over and over again."

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who has recently taken control of the intelligence committee, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East. “To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again,” Senator Rockefeller said during an interview in his office. “This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre.”

The former commander of CENTCOM, General John Abizaid and the former commander of US forces in Iraq General Casey in testimonies before the Senate opposed the need for a troop surge. Both of them were simply replaced.

Immediately after the president announced his new policy, both the British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice toured the Middle East to form an alliance of regional democracies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan against Iran and Syria. During her trip to the Middle East Condoleezza Rice said: "On one side are reformers and responsible leaders", in which she included "Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas [not the popularly elected government led by HAMAS], and in Iraq... But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas" who "...use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments, and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance," she declared.

[Rasputin]

Negative reactions to the plan in the Middle East
The new US plan has come under a barrage of criticism at home and abroad. Opinion polls in the United States have shown that nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the Bush plan. Even the countries that are supposed to be the recipients of US favour do not seem to have been persuaded by this new policy.

Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani chastised Washington for failing to consult the Gulf Co-operation Council before formulating its new policy. He went on: "I think it's important for American friends to coordinate their policies with countries in the region ... before adopting them." "The region's countries will be the first to be affected by their policies," he said in Doha at a press conference with his Italian counterpart Massimo D'Alema. "Those policies that led to this situation have harmed the region."

The comments in most of the Middle East press, even in countries that are friendly to America, have been dismissive of the plan.

In Saudi Arabia, the Okaz newspaper wrote: "The American administration has no right to ask Iraqis and other countries of the region to follow its strategy... when the administration itself is incapable of convincing even Americans of this policy." It continued: "A good number of observers do not expect the new American strategy to succeed in improving the situation in Iraq. On the contrary, they believe that it will lead to more chaos, more terrorist acts and more victims." The US government should "first of all convince its own people about the strategy before trying to convince the world," it said.

In the United Arab Emirates, the headline on the Al-Khaleej mocked: "Rice comes... as a tourist." "If Rice has come only to listen, it's a mixture of sarcasm and provocation. Rice knows only too well the positions of the countries she is visiting and doesn't need to listen further." The paper asked: "And even after listening and understanding what others want, will she take that on board?"

In Jordan, another key US regional ally, the independent Al-Arab Al-Yawm also dismissed the chance of Rice winning support for Bush's plans for Iraq. It wrote: "Rice is not expected to be successful in promoting Bush's strategy. When the secretary of state asks moderate Arab countries to support the Maliki government, she is in fact asking them to support Iran's influence in Iraq."

“The former pressure was an illusion and the lack of any pressure now will push the crisis between the people and their rulers to the edge,” said Ibrahim Eissa, the editor of Al Dustoor, a weekly independent newspaper in Egypt that is critical of the government. That eliminates “all false appearances that the Arab regimes are against the United States in defense of their independent sovereignty and that the United States is supporting democracy when it is in strict alliance with the oppressive regimes,” he added.

The leading Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram carried an article by Hassan Nafaa, professor of political science at Cairo University, entitled "Time to say no". It argued: "To continue kowtowing to the US administration's demands over Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine would be suicidal."

Referring to the recent US policies towards Iran and Iraq, Nafaa wrote: "Arab leaders who believed the claims that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein would eliminate one of the greatest impediments to regional stability should look at what has in fact been eliminated. It is Iraq as a state that has been destroyed... As important as the strategic relationship with the US might be, Arab leaders should realise that Bush and his gang of neo-conservatives are not synonymous with the United States. They are a band of thugs bent on steering the world to unmitigated disaster, a fact grasped by the majority of the American people upon whom it has dawned that this administration is no less fanatical and racist than Hitler and the Nazis."

These are strong words by a major commentator in a country that is allegedly friendly towards the United States.

The complete bankruptcy
All this shows the complete bankruptcy of US foreign policy and the state of confusion in which the American foreign policy-makers find themselves.

Theirs is a foreign policy that has gone totally berserk. It is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. It is opposed by a sizeable majority of senators and congressmen. It is opposed by many in the military. It was initiated behind the back of the 'democratically-elected' Iraqi government. It is rejected by the people in the Middle East. It is simply meant to please a shrinking number of fanatical neocons who do not seem to have had their fill of war and bloodshed yet.

The Neoconservatives that pushed America towards perhaps the worst disaster in her history, namely the illegal war in Iraq, are likely to push her towards an even more disastrous decision if they can manufacture an American invasion of Iran. The first time many Americans were fooled by their false intelligence and extensive propaganda.

If they allow themselves to be fooled a second time, it will be unforgivable.

[Rasputin]

US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities."

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.

"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer."

IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.

A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy but argued that the essential point was Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

"I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true intentions."

That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report. It concluded bluntly: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop. The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot enrichment plant.

Furthermore, the report said that Iran had informed the agency of its plan to install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant by May - a total of nearly 3,000. At the moment, Iran's centrifuges are being used to make low-enriched uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium, they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year.

Dr ElBaradei's report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them.

Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give Iran a clear bill of health.

One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant. "Regarding the suspension mentioned in the report, because such a demand has no legal basis and is against international treaties, naturally, it could not be accepted by Iran," Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told Reuters in Tehran. Mr Saeedi said the report showed that returning to talks was the best way to resolve the dispute.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was "deeply concerned". "I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully."

[Rasputin]

Nuclear weapons have a way of forcing presidents to reverse policies thought to be carved in stone. So it was with Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union, and so it may be now with George W. Bush and the two surviving members of the "axis of evil."

To the outrage of some supporters and the mockery of his critics, President Bush has blessed a tentative, quarter-loaf diplomatic deal aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear arsenal. And he has a shot at reaching a modus vivendi with Iran on nuclear proliferation as well -- if he disregards both the outrage and the mockery, as he should.

"There is movement behind the scenes," a European diplomat who closely follows Iran told me last week. "The Iranians are nervous and want to get engaged." Details of a confidential Iranian proposal that has been circulating in Brussels and Tehran for four months support the view that there could be an opening on the Iranian front despite the angry rhetoric from Iran triggered by last week's new indictment of its nuclear ambitions by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Bush vigorously ruled out rewarding bad behavior by foreign adversaries in his first term. Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the international community was a driving force in Bush's labeling Iraq, along with North Korea and Iran, as irredeemably evil in 2002 and invading Iraq a year later.

But now Bush countenances providing economic and diplomatic rewards to North Korea, and ultimately to Iran, to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of two regimes that behave as badly as anyone could want. The bravado of the first Bush term has been replaced by a sadder and quieter way of doing business abroad as Iraq has sapped U.S. capabilities and political cohesion.

The sense of a U-turn is reinforced by Bush's reliance this time on the negotiating skills of his diplomatic corps and on European and Asian partners to reach, enforce and pay for the projected deals, which would serve as twin tombstones for a brief era of U.S. unilateralism.

The change on North Korea is described by former administration officials as a strategic decision by the president to start "to pry the lid off" of that starving, tyrannized remnant of the Cold War by offering Pyongyang a path for peaceful change. Cooperation in the six-party negotiations would also help stabilize China's relations with Japan and the United States, in this view.

The president reportedly surprised Chinese President Hu Jintao during their lunch at the White House last April by suggesting that, if the nuclear impasse could be resolved, the time was right for a formal peace treaty to end the Korean conflict. And when North Korea defied Chinese "advice" by conducting a nuclear test in October, China became more engaged in pulling Pyongyang back to the negotiating table.

Unfortunately, Bush cannot rely on Russia to play a similarly helpful role with Iran. President Vladimir Putin seems willing to take enormous risks with global stability for short-term, largely commercial reasons. And divisions in Iran's leadership make the reaching of a "mutual suspension" accord -- under which Tehran will suspend enriching uranium in return for the suspension of U.N. sanctions -- more difficult.

But U.S. and European policy should play on those divisions, which have visibly surfaced as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rants on in full-throated belligerence while officials closer to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, offer proposals that have the virtue at least of identifying the chief remaining obstacles to a deal.

Last autumn, Iran's Ali Larijani told European Union negotiator Javier Solana that Iran could accept the Russian-E.U. proposal for an international consortium to enrich and reprocess nuclear fuel for Iran -- if the enrichment and reprocessing were done on Iranian soil.

A diplomatic device known as a nonpaper (so its existence can be denied) and dated Oct. 1, 2006, describes a "gentlemen's agreement" by the two diplomats to use the proposal "to help open the way to negotiations." When I telephoned him in Berlin last week, Solana affably but deftly warded off questions about the nonpaper, then added: "Nothing has been agreed. Nothing has been put forward in formal terms."

Precisely. The Iranian condition is unacceptable to Washington. But the fact that it was put forward at all suggests that the pressures generated by the U.S. Treasury's campaign to limit finance and export credits to Iran and condemnation by the United Nations are taking a toll on the Iranians -- as these tools did on North Korea.

Bush seems to have decided to employ strategic patience in seeking a verifiable nuclear deal with North Korea and to have taken a long-range view of regional stability. He should do no less with Iran, however much manufactured outrage or contrived mockery it provokes, in Tehran or in Washington.

[Rasputin]

تعدادی از فرماندهان بلندپايه ارتش آمريکا در اقدامی بي*سابقه تهديد کرده*اند درصورتی که کاخ سفيد هرگونه دستوری برای آغاز حمله نظامی به ايران صادر کند از سمت خود استفعاء خواهند داد. به گزارش هفته*نامه بريتانيايی ,ساندي*تايمز, اين فرماندهان شامل پنج ژنرال بلندپايه در نيروی زمينی و دريايی آمريکا هستند. يک منبع اطلاعاتی ناشناس در پنتاگون به خبرنگار اين هفته*نامه گفته *است در ميان مقامات وزارت دفاع نيز هيچ علاقه*ای به انجام اين حمله مشاهده نمي*شود و ترديد بسيار زيادی نسبت به اثربخشی و يا حتی احتمال اين حمله وجود دارد.

به گفته خبرنگار ساندی تايمز اين پنج ژنرال به طور کاملا روشن ساخته*اند که ارتش امريکا در حال حاضر از توان کافی برای انجام اين حمله برخوردار نبوده و توجيه درستی نيز برای انجام آن وجود ندارد.

هشدار ژنرال*های آمريکايی مبنی بر استعفا همزمان با افزايش تهديدات کاخ سفيد عليه ايران مطرح مي*شود. در تازه*ترين اين تهديدها ديک چني،* معاون رئيس جمهور آمريکا با تکرار انتقادات آمريکا از ايران به علت عدم تعليق فعاليت*های هسته*ای ادعا کرد بعد از رد مهلت شورای امنيت توسط تهران همه گزينه*ها (اقدام نظامی) در قبال ايران بر روی ميز مي*ماند.

ساندی تايمز در ادامه تحليل خود نوشته اقدام ژنرال*های ناراضی در عملی کردن تهديد استغعاء يک طغيان بزرگ در تاريخ ارتش آمريکا تلقی خواهد شد زيرا تاکنون ژنرال*های آمريکايی عليرغم آنکه بعضا به طور آشکار نارضايتی خود را از سياست*های پنتاگون ابراز کرده*اند با اين حال دوره خدمت خود در ارتش را به طور کامل به پايان رسانده*اند.

گفتنی است ديک چنی معاون رئيس*جمهور آمريکا روز شنبه با اشاره به اينکه "استفاده از هر *گزينه*ای عليه ايران امکان*پذير است" به طور تلويحی احتمال حمله نظامی عليه تهران را تائيد کرده بود، اما پيتر پيس رئيس ستاد مشترک امريکا احتمال وقوع برخورد نظامی بين ايران و ايالات متحده را در شرايط کنونی "صفر" دانسته است.

[Rasputin]

شان مک کورمک سخنگوی وزات خارجه آمريکا اعلام کرد که اين کشور به دنبال افزايش متناسب فشارها عليه ايران است.
به گزارش خبرگزاری آسوشيتدپرس، مک کورمک با اشاره به نشست امروز لندن بين پنج کشورعضو شورای امنيت سازمان ملل متحد و آلمان، گفت : "انتظار من اين است که ماهيت قطعنامه مبتنی بر افزايش فشار باشد".

سخنگوی وزارت خارجه آمريکا در رابطه با صدور قطعنامه احتمالی در اين نشست گفت که اين قطعنامه برای افزايش فشار متناسب بر ايران است.

مک کورمک همچنين مدعی شد که فشارهايی که در قطعنامه سپتامبر گذشته عليه ايران اعمال شده نتايج شگفت انگيری به همراه داشته است.

به گفته مک کورمک قطعنامه 1737 همچنين بحث هايی را در داخل ايران در پی داشته است مبنی بر اينکه آيا بی اعتنايی کشورشان به نظام بين المللی عاقلانه بوده است يا خير.

[Rasputin]

Interview with Hamid Taqvaee, leader of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran which aired on TV International English.

Maryam Namazie: There is an escalating propaganda war between Iran and the USA reminiscent of the USA government’s propaganda campaign before the war on Iraq as a way of preparing public opinion for an attack.

Hamid Taqvaee: Yes, it seems as if the US government is following in the same footsteps. But there is a big difference when you compare today’s conditions with conditions before the attack on Iraq and that is of course the experience of Iraq itself. We know that the US government is facing a quagmire in Iraq and does not know how to end it. Moreover, public opinion in the US and across the world is against any type of military attack on Iran and even the reinforcement of US troops in Iraq.

So there is a huge difference but on its own this does not mean that an attack is completely impossible. It is not. It is still possible as a last and desperate act of the Bush administration. The propaganda war is also a form of political pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran due to its influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. As I have always said in the past, the main reason behind the ‘nuclear crisis’ is the Islamic regime’s interference in the region, which has been problematic for the USA. The US government wants the regime to abandon its influence and role in the region under this pressure.

Some will say that this is a role Iran has played for a while now. And there’s always been some sort of confrontation between the US and Iran. They will ask, then, why is it coming to a head at this point?

It is coming to a head because of what is taking place in Iraq. Before the US government’s attack on Iraq, the Islamic regime of Iran did not have the influence it sought; after Iraq, political Islam is on the rise. The very fact that a group like Hamas has managed to secure power in Palestine is a direct result of the situation in Iraq. As is the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the rise of many different Islamic groups in Iraq.

The current situation is very different from even a year ago. The US government is desperate in Iraq whilst the Islamic regime of Iran has secured influence it did not have several years ago. This is the reason why the Iraq Study Group has recommended dealing with Iran and Syria if the US government hopes to reach some form of solution in the Middle East.

Without a new balance of power in the region in favour of the US government vis-à-vis governments like the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, the US won’t be able to find a solution acceptable to it for the Middle East. That is a real political fact. And the only way that the US can oppose Iran is by exerting pressure under the guise of a ‘nuclear crisis’. From their perspective, the ‘nuclear crisis’ is an advantageous way of promoting an aggressive policy towards the Islamic Republic.

So under the guise of a ‘nuclear crisis’ they are actually addressing the other crisis they have in the region, which is the rising power of different Islamic groups everywhere. They have to do something. And they know that one of the main sources of the Islamic movements in the region is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So, in a sense, it sounds that given the situation in the US, it might actually be beneficial for the US government to attack Iran. And there are commentators that are saying it’s also beneficial for Ahmadinejad to have this confrontation given the fact that it would take away from the popular discontent against the Islamic regime of Iran.

The problem with the analyses that says both sides want war is that it does not take into consideration the power of people -- a third camp that is neither with the US nor with the Islamic Republic - and is in fact against both of them. That force - especially in Iran and western countries -- is a powerful player in the political scene. It plays a very important role.

Also, even if it might seem to be beneficial from the point of view of both governments, it will have adverse effects on both of them in the short and long term. It would not be a sound decision on the part of the US government to attack Iran. It might do so as a last resort and out of desperation but it will not solve anything for them. This is one factor. The other factor is that the people of Iran and the political situation in Iran are very different from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iran, we have a huge secular movement against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their slogan is ‘Neither War nor Atomic Bomb’. They want neither. They are against both. That force is going to become more and more powerful.

Of course, in the short-term, in the event of an attack, the people of Iran will suffer immensely but in time the protest movement will become all the more powerful similar to those in Iraq. After the US attack on Iraq, groups opposed to the US became powerful and active. But of course they are all reactionary. In Iran we have an opposition force which is with the people, which is secular, which is civilized, and which is radical. And that force will gain power and become an ever more powerful factor in the political situation in Iran. So what they have to take into consideration is the presence of that movement in Iran which is against both of them; workers, youth and women in Iran are with that movement.

Some are saying that even though there was a mass movement against the attack on Iraq, it did not make any difference whatsoever. The attack went ahead despite the protests in the US and elsewhere. Will opposition to a war on Iran really make a difference?

As I have said, the situation is very different. At that time we did not have such widespread opposition to the war. I know we had an anti-war movement but still American public opinion was not so firmly against it and somehow the US government was able to use that to its advantage. Today, this is not possible anymore. The other issue is that you cannot compare things in this mechanical manner and say that because we had no success before, a protest movement cannot be successful at any time. That is not the way to reflect on the experiences of history.

For example, there was a huge movement against the Vietnam War and it was eventually successful in ending the Vietnam War. Also, even if a movement does not succeed, it does not make it worthless. It just means you have to do more, to organise more, mobilise more people with more radical demands on a greater scale against the war. So the very fact that we did not achieve our desired results three years ago does not at all mean that today will be more of the same.

Of course the US government, Bush, the present administration do not care about what the people are saying. But the entire ruling class, both parties in the US, have to come in terms with what to do in Iraq. Also, Russia and China have to come to some sort of agreement. And it does not seem that Russia, China and the other members of the Security Council will easily sign up to whatever the US says. They have not done so up to now and it seems very unlikely that they will do so now.

For any sort of attack, the US government will have to go it alone. This time, in the face of the opposition of even the Republicans, Congress, the Democrats, a part of the ruling class in the US itself. Three years ago when they attacked Iraq, most of those in Congress from both parties were in favour of the war. Today most of them are against the war. These are all political differences between the situation today and three years ago.

Is there also the possibility of an Israel-Iran proxy war, as we saw in Lebanon, with the US itself not getting directly involved but via Israel.

I do not think that they will do so because any form of Israeli direct action will mobilise all the Arab countries behind the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is obvious. Even the Arab countries that are traditionally US allies like Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will mobilise behind the regime if Israel attacks Iran. I think this is risky for them. It is political suicide for the Israeli government and US policies in the Middle East. I don’t see it as being very likely. I don’t think they are that desperate to do so.

A commentator in the Observer has stated that if there is an attack on Iran, the clash of civilizations that the neo-conservatives had predicted would come a step closer to dominating the 21st century.

The clash of civilizations theory is nonsense. There is no Islamic civilization. And if there was such a thing, how could the Islamic Republic of Iran be a representative of such a civilization, so to speak. It is not a clash of civilizations. This is an absurd post-modern theory. What is happening is that after the Cold War, the USA is striving to be the dominant power in the world and in the Middle East. And the US is confronted with Islamic forces that it created during the final years of the Cold War in Afghanistan, and in Iran itself by supporting Khomeini. Bush also does not represent any kind of civilization or Western so to speak civilization nor does the Islamic forces represent an Eastern civilization. That’s absurd and meaningless and it is unhelpful in real politics to discuss it in these terms.

There are reports of differences in the regime itself on how to deal with the USA.

Of course there are different factions within the Islamic regime and one of the main differences between the factions is their policy towards the US and the so to speak ‘nuclear crisis’. When Khatami was president, the approach was different but now the right-wing faction of the Islamic Republic is dominant and Ahmadinejad represents them. They are following the same line as the supreme leader Khamenei.

[Rasputin]

They are, however, faced with strong opposition inside the regime. Rafsanjani is one of those who is opposing the current policy. Of course they all want to continue with the nuclear project but they differ in the way it should done and on the region’s foreign policy and policy towards the US. Ahmadinejad has been unable to achieve any of the goals he set forth at the start of his presidency and has become weaker and weaker. And as a result, the opposition is getting more powerful. That’s the other aspect of the ‘nuclear crisis’ in Iran.

Rising prices, inflation, unemployment is worse than it ever was under Ahmadinejad. A Guardian reporter has said he may become known as the president who was brought down by the price of tomatoes.

It is obvious that with the economic sanctions, even in the restricted sense, prices will double and increase. This is already happening. It adds to the horrendous economic situation for people. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic can blame the situation on US policies and sanctions in order to excuse and defend its policies. Nonetheless, the people of Iran know this regime very well. Regionally, the Islamic regime may be a sort of hero for Islamic forces in Lebanon or in Palestine or even in Iraq, but in Iran, this is not the case.

In Iran most of the people, a huge majority of the people, are against this regime and despise it. And I do not think that any problem with the US will help the regime. So on the one hand you see heightened economic, political and social pressure on the people of Iran; on the other hand, it will, I believe, heighten, and radicalise opposition against the Islamic Republic.

The Stop the War Coalition has encouraged the political Islamic movement, to the extent that the Islamic regime of Iran’s flag is raised at anti-war demonstrations. When activists oppose the regime’s flag, they are accused of supporting US policies! This is an argument we have heard often from the pathetic grouping that considers itself left. What would you say to those who say that by opposing the Islamic regime you are promoting, helping and creating an environment which will make it easier for the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Actually I think one of the problems of the Iranian people and people everywhere is this so-called left. This type of political force thinks that when you are against the US, you must support any movement which is also against the US. We know that in today’s political situation, Islamic forces are against the US. So according to their childish logic, you must support the Islamic Republic or other Islamic forces just because you are against the US.

This logic that any group that is opposed to the US is progressive and must be supported means more than anything else that the so-called leftist groups have nothing to offer themselves. It means that they are irrelevant. They have to support somebody, anybody as they cannot call upon the public to support them. That is the problem. It firstly, reveals the weakness and irrelevance of these sort of leftist groups in real politics.

For us, for worker-communism of Iran, for our party, this is not the situation. We are calling for everybody to support us against both reactionary forces - the US’ militarism and the Islamic Republic. We don’t believe that if you are against one of them, you have to support the other. You can be against both of them. Because what matters is workers, women, people, secularism, civilization, what people really want, what is the right of people to have... That is all that matters.

And if you are representing humanity, if you are representing equality, if you are representing secularism, if you are representing freedom, then you have to be against both of them. We call on everybody to a third camp against both of these reactionary forces; we call on everybody to support the Left. The Left, if it is the real Left, if it is the real radical Left, does not have to support any other group or movement. Anybody who is for freedom, who is for equality, who is for welfare of the people, has to follow the Left and support the Left.

[Rasputin]

جان مک کانل، مدير اطلاعات ملی آمريکا تروریسم را بزرگ ترین تهدید امنیتی علیه آمریکا دانست و از احتمال دستیابی ایران به سلاح هسته ای ابراز نگرانی کرد.
جان مک کانل که جانشین جان نگروپونته شده است در جلسه ای در برابر کمیته نیروهای مسلح سنای آمریکا، ایران و کره شمالی را مایه نگرانی برای آمریکا خواند و این نگرانی را ناشی از احتمال گسترش سلاح های کشتار جمعی دانست.

وی افزود که "ما بر این گمان هستیم که ایران درصدد دستیابی به سلاح های هسته ای است و بیشتر تمایل به خروج از مذاکرات دارد تا یافتن راه حلی دیپلماتیک برای مناقشه هسته ای."

ایران بارها ادعای آمریکا مبنی بر تلاش برای دستیابی سلاح هسته ای را رد کرده و گفته است که تنها برای مقاصد صلح آمیز در پی فن آوری هسته ای است.

مدير اطلاعات ملی آمريکا گفت: "اگر چه اطلاعات ما کامل نیست اما ما حدس می زنیم که ایران تا اوائل یا اواسط دهه آینده قادرباشد تا سلاح هسته ای تولید کند."

جان مک کانل افزود که آمریکا سندی مبنی بر دخالت مستقیم رهبری ایران در عراق ندارد اما احتمال می دهد که پیوندی در این میان وجود داشته باشد.

مقامات ایران با رد دخالت در عراق گفته اند که خواهان برقراری ثبات و امنیت در کشور همسایه خود هستند و خروج نیروهای آمریکایی از عراق را برای این مهم ضروری می دانند.

آقای مک کانل القاعده را خطرناک ترین سازمان دنیا معرفی کرد و گفت که عناصری از القاعده کماکان به طرح و برنامه ریزی حملات با هدف به بار آوردن تلفات گسترده مشغولند.

وی همچنین افزود که این سازمان درصدد دستیابی به سلاح های کشتار جمعی است و در حال برقرار کردن ارتباطات عملیاتی قوی تری است.

به گفته مدير اطلاعات ملی آمريکا، القاعده از اردوگاه های خود در پاکستان در حال گسترش در خاورمیانه، شمال آفریقا و اروپا است.

آقای مک کانل همچنین گروه شبه نظامی حزب الله لبنان را تهدید خطرناکی برای امنیت آمریکا دانست.

مدير جدید اطلاعات ملی آمريکا که بر وظایف 16 مرکز اطلاعاتی این کشور نظارت می کند در مورد عراق گفت که این کشور در "مسیر نادرستی پیش می رود."

[Rasputin]

بالاخره اسنادی که قول افشای آنها را آقای زلمای خليل زاد سفير افغانی الاصل آمريکا در عراق؛ از عناصر با نفوذ جناح نومحافظ کار و نماينده احتمالی آينده آمريکا در سازمان ملل مبنی بر دخالت ايران در عراق و کمک به شورشيان برای از ميان بردن سربازان آمريکائی داده بود، چند روز پيش در معرض ديد عموم قرار گرفت.

جلسه غيرعادی که طی آن سه افسر آمريکائی بدون ذکر نام و نشان به توضيح دلايل و يافته های خود پرداختند. در اين جلسه خبرنگاران حق حمل دوربين، ضبط صوت و حتی تلفن همراه را به داخل جلسه نداشتند.

طی اين نشست توجيهی پس از نشان دادن برخی مهمات بکار رفته که بدون ذکر دليل ادعا می گردد که ساخت ايران می باشند بالاترين مقامات ايرانی متهم به 1دخالت در امور عراق و ياری رسانيدن به ستيزه جويان عراقی برای انهدام نفربرها و کشتن سربازان آمريکائی می شوند.

دو روز پس از اين جلسه تشريحی در عراق ژنرال پيتر پيس (Peter Pace) فرمانده نيروهای مسلح ايالات متحده در جاکارتا در اظهار نظری متناقض می گويد2: "معنای بکار گيری مهمات ايرانی اين نيست که حکومت ايران مستقيما و قطعا در اين کار دخالت دارد."

در پی اين اظهار نظرات ضد و نقيض پرزيدنت بوش برای رفع ترديدها و ابهامات پا به ميدان گذاشته و گفت: "آنچه که مهم است اينست که اين مهمات آنجا هستند... کار من حفاظت از سربازان آمريکائی است و وقتی سلاحهائی يافت می شود که منجر به صدماتی به نفرات ما می گردد ما بايد کاری کنيم، ساده و صريح."

بعبارت ساده تر از نظر آقای بوش اينکه حکومت ايران دخالت دارد يا ندارد اهميتی ندارد چون مهمات مزبور (به ادعای افسران بی نام و نشان) ساخت ايران هستند "ما بايد کاری بکنيم." البته اين "کار" هم اکنون به شدت محل بحث و مناقشه آناليست های سياسی است و در واقع منظور اين نوشتار نزديک شدن به هدف نهائی پرزيدنت بوش از طرح اين مسئله در مقطع کنونی است.

در آگوست سال ۲۰۰۵ شبکه NBC گزارش کرد 3 "پيچيده ترين بمبهای کنار جاده از ايران به عراق حمل می گردند."

در گزارش مزبور می خوانيم که يکی از اين بمبهای کنار جاده ۱۴ سرباز نيروی دريائی آمريکا را به هلاکت رسانيد درحاليکه زره پوش ۳۷ تنی آنان واژگون شده و پس از طی مسافتی در حدود ۴۰ فوت (۱۲ متر) منفجر شد.

بدين ترتيب مسئله "بمبهای کنار جاده ساخت ايران" در سال ۲۰۰۵ توسط شبکه های خبری آمريکا مانند CBS, NBC و نشريه نيويورک تايمز به اطلاع عموم رسيده بود. پس اين چه سری است که پس از مدت زمانی قريب يکسال و نيم يکمرتبه قضيه با يک جلسه تشريحی نيمه سری و مرموز اوج گرفته و پرزيدنت بوش مصمم می شود که در اين زمينه "کاری" کند، آنهم چه حکومت ايران در اين قضيه دست داشته باشد و چه نداشته باشد؟

اين داستان شباهت عجيبی به انتشار اسنادی دارد( بعدا مجعول بودن آنها4 محرز گرديد) که توسط آقای پاول در خصوص سلاحهای کشتار جمعی عراق به جامعه جهانی ارائه گرديد.

اگر از تمام قرائنی که در زمينه تصميم پرزيدنت بوش داير بر حمله به ايران وجود دارد بگذريم (که کمی بعد به تشريح آنها خواهيم پرداخت) نفس اين جلسه تشريحی و ادعای فاقد پشتوانه سه افسر ناشناس مبنی بر دخالت بالاترين مقامهای ايران و همزمانی اين امر با حضور وسيع نظامی آمريکا در آبهای خليج فارس بشدت سئوال برانگيز است. عليرغم انکار مکرر قصد حمله به ايران توسط پرزيدنت بوش و رابرت گيتس وزير دفاع شواهد حکايت از اهداف ديگری دارند.

زمينه چينی از ۱۰ ژانويه با سخنرانی سالانه پرزيدنت بوش آغاز گرديد. در اين سخنرانی آنچه که بيش از همه برروی آن تکيه شد کلمه "ايران" بود. بوش طی اين سخنرانی برای نخستين بار بطور مستقيم گناه شکست آمريکا در عراق را به گردن ايران انداخته و گفت که با تمام قدرت شبکه ای را که اسلحه و آموزش در اختيار دشمنان عراق می گذارد درهم خواهد کوبيد. همزمان در حالی که سخنرانی وی در جريان بود سربازان آمريکائی به مقر دفتر جمهوری اسلامی در اربيل حمله کردند و پنج ايرانی را که در دفتر مزبور مشغول به کار بودند به اسارت درآوردند.

در همين حال يکی از مشاوران بلند پايه پنتاگون آقای دن گور (Dan Goure) به روزنامه انگليسی ساندی تلگراف5 گفت:"شما نمی توانيد تکليف ميليشا در عراق را روشن کنيد بدون اينکه تکليف حامی آنان يعنی ايران را روشن کنيد. پيام ما اينک اينست که بگذاريد دستکش ها را بيرون آوريم."

در حال حاضر دو ناو اتمی آمريکا در خليج فارس به سر می برند و جنگ کلمات نيز با شدت تمام بين دو کشور در جريان است. اما آنچه که بسيار نگران کننده بنظر می رسد حضور قايقهای مين ياب در منطقه است.

سم گاردينر (Sam Gardiner) يکی از مشاوران برجسته نظامی آمريکائی با تخصص در امور خاورميانه به نشريه معتبر Fair Vanity می گويد6: "اعزام قايقهای مين روب به منطقه بهيچ دليل ديگری جز اين نمی تواند باشد که با تلاش ايران برای بستن تنگه هرمز مقابله شود. اين قايقها بايد بکسل (Tow) شوند و به منطقه آورده شوند. بکسل کردن و آوردن آنها به خليج فارس بين ۳ تا ۴ هفته بطول می انجامد. مقاله Vanity Fair هم چنين به شکل گيری يک تحول اساسی ديگر اشاره می کند و آن بارز شدن نقش فرماندهی استراتژيک آمريکا (StratCom) است که عملا قدرت را از دست فرماندهی مرکزی (CentCom) که تمامی عمليات افغانستان و عراق را در منطقه فرماندهی می کرده است خارج می نمايد. تخصص فرماندهی استراتژيک (StratCom) استفاده از سلاحهای هسته اي، دفاع موشکی و دفاع در برابر سلاحهای کشتار جمعی است. مقاله مزبور می افزايد "بوش به فرماندهی استراتژيک وظيفه تهيه پلان حمله به ايران را محول کرده است."

کلنل بازنشسته پاتريک لنگ (Patrick Lang) که مدتها در خاورميانه و سازمان اطلاعات وزارت دفاع در مناصب بالا مشغول بکار بوده به Vanity Fair می گويد: "جابجائی فرماندهی عمليات از فرماندهی مرکزی به فرماندهی استراتژيک بيانگر اين امر است که آنها واقعا در فکر بکار گرفتن حمله هوائی و دريائی به ايران هستند." از سوی ديگر همين کلنل بازنشسته به نکته کليدی ديگری اشاره می کند و آن اينکه در اين ميان برگزيدن يک افسر نيروی دريائی به فرماندهی عمليات اجرائی در منطقه يعنی آدميرال ويليام فالون ( William Fallon) قدری عجيب بنظر می رسد. درحاليکه دو جبهه جنگ زمينی در افغانستان و عراق در جريان است بکار گماردن يک آدميرال نيروی دريائی آن هم در چنين سمتی حکايت از طرحهائی ديگر دارد.

روزنامه گاردين طی مقاله ای با عنوان "آمريکا می تواند ايران را در بهار آينده مورد حمله قرار دهد" به نقل از يک منبع مطلع می نويسد: "آمادگی آمريکا برای حمله هوائی به ايران در مراحل پيشرفته ای قرار دارد. اين امر عليرغم انکار افراد کابينه بوش است."

گاردين هم چنين بدستور آقای بوش مبنی بر ذخيره سازی هر چه بيشتر نفت بعنوان نشانه ای از آماده شدن آمريکا برای حمله به ايران ياد می کند.

نيروی به پيش راننده کليه اين برنامه ريزيها فکر انباره (Think Tank ) آمريکن اينترپرايز(AEI) است که به عنوان دفتر مرکزی نئوکنسرواتيو ها عمل می کند.

عناصر AEI و در صدر آنان چنی و ريچارد پرل (Richard Perle) معماران اصلی جنگ عراق بودند. دکترين محور شرارت و نتايج حاصله از آن توسط اعضاء همين موسسه ابداع گرديد. درحاليکه قرائن حکايت از تضعيف قدرت اين موسسه در شکل دادن به سياست خارجی آمريکا می نمود پرزيدنت بوش در يک حرکت غيرمنتظره و در مخالفت با پيشنهاد گروه متنفذ بيکر-هميلتون و نيز مخالفت صريح با پنتاگون و وزارت خارجه و کنگره آمريکا تصميم بر اجرای طرحی گرفت که AEI تحت عنوان "طرحی برای موفقيت در عراق"7 تهيه کرده بود. آيا آقای بوش به درخواست AEI برای حمله به ايران8 نيز گوش فرا خواهد داد؟

جاش موراوچيک (Josh Moravchik) از متخصصين امور خاورميانه AEI می گويد: "خطر ايران در ارتباط با سلاح هسته ای تنها اين نيست که روزی به ناگهان آنرا بکار برد بلکه بيشتر اينست که با اتکاء به آن دست به هر نوع خلاف کاری بزند. من فکر نمی کنم جز با بکار گرفتن زور راه ديگری برای متوقف کردن ايران داشته باشيم."

نومحافظه کاران مسئله ايران را از حدود دهسال پيش در مرکز توجه خود داشته اند. در سال ۱۹۹۶ نخست وزير تازه منتخب اسرائيل بنيامين نتانياهو و رهبر حزب فوق راست ليکود مسافرتی به واشنگتن انجام داد تا با يکی از برجسته ترين افراد گروه نومحافظه کار يعنی ريچارد پرل ملاقاتی داشته باشد.

در اين جلسه گزارشی که چرخش غيرمنتظره ای را در سياستهای اسرائيل پديد آورده و از سوئی به شدت سياست خارجی آمريکا را نيز تا به امروز تحت تاثير خود قرار داده است از سوی فکر انباره انستيتو مطالعات پيشرفته استراتژيک به او تقديم شد. گزارش مذکور تحت عنوان "يک فرصت تازه" سخن از ترک پروسه زمين در برابر صلح با فلسطينی ها و نيز دموکراتيزه کردن کشورهای خاورميانه حتی با توسل به زور می نمود. آنچه که دقيقا امروز مرکز توجه سياست خارجی کابينه جورج بوش است.

دو روز پس از اين ملاقات نتانياهو در سخنانی که در کنگره آمريکا ايراد نمود حتی از ترمهای گزارش مزبور استفاده نموده و از لزوم دموکراتيزه کردن "دولتهای تروريست خاورميانه" سخن راند.

[Rasputin]

نتانياهو در همين سخنرانی از ايران بعنوان بزرگترين تهديد ياد نمود.

يکی از تهيه کنندگان گزارش مزبور خانم ميراو وارزمر (Mirav Wursmer) که امروز رئيس بخش خاورميانه انستيتوی دست راستی هادسن (Hudson Institute) است بطور باور نکردنی از يک جنگ تمام عيار در خاورميانه حمايت می کند. به نوشته Vanity Fair او در مورد وضعيت فعلی در عراق اعتقاد دارد که: "يک افتضاح به تمام معنی است، اينطور نيست؟ بحث من اما اينست و هميشه هم مدافع اين نظريه بوده ام که اين جنگ هيچ مفهومی ندارد مگر اينکه کل منطقه را در برگيرد."

ريچارد پرل کسی که اغلب بعنوان مغز متفکر نومحافظه کاران از او ياد می شود معتقد است که بوش قبل از ترک کاخ سفيد به ايران حمله خواهد کرد. وی می گويد9: "آيا اين پرزيدنت دست به اينکار (حمله به ايران) خواهد زد؟ ... من شک ندارم که اين پرزيدنت دستور عمليات نظامی را که مورد انتظار است خواهد داد."

در اين ميان آنچه که امکان هماهنگی آقای بوش را با ديدگاه تهاجمی نومحافظه کاران امکان پذير می سازد اعتقادات عميق مذهبی اوست.

۵ روز پس از فاجعه ۱۱ سپتامبر برای نخستين بار جورج بوش از ترم "جنگهای صليبی" استفاده نمود. او که دشمنان آمريکا را نيز با استفاده از ترم مذهبی "شر" می خواند گفت: "ما اين را می فهميم و مردم آمريکا نيز رفته رفته به اين درک دست می يابند. اين جنگ صليبي، اين جنگ بر عليه تروريسم برای مدتی نسبتا طولانی ادامه خواهد يافت. جورج بوش10 يکی از ۴۲ درصد از مردم آمريکاست که خود را اونجليست (Evangelical) می دانند و معتقدند دوباره متولد شده اند. او که معتقد است در سال ۱۹۸۵ و تحت راهنمائی بيلی گراهام، اين فوق ستاره کليسای انجيلی که يک شبه از يک فروشنده لوازم تميز کننده به يکی از قطبهای اين کليسا تبديل گرديد، دلش برروی عشق به مسيح باز شده است.

روزنامه گاردين11 در اين خصوص می نويسد جورج بوش مرد سرنوشت و تقدير است و معتقد است که "ماموريتی از جانب خداوند" به او واگذار شده است.

نخستين کاری که پرزيدنت بوش با آن روز خود را آغاز می کند12، حتی قبل از صرف صبحانه، مطالعه کتاب يک واعظ نه چندان مشهور کليسای انجيلی از اهالی اسکاتلند اسوالد چمبرز( Oswald Chambers ) است که حدود ۹۰ سال پيش درگذشته است. با تکيه بر همين اعتقادات بوش در جائی می گويد13: "تروريستها از اين واقعيت متنفرند که ما می توانيم خدای متعال را آنطور که خودمان می خواهيم پرستش کنيم."

او در همان سخنرانی اضافه می کند که اين ماموريت به ايالات متحده داده شده است که اين هديه خداوند يعنی آزادی را برای تمامی انسانها به ارمغان آورد. جورج بوش معتقد است14 در پس پرده زندگی و تاريخ هدفی نهفته است که بدست خدای عادل و ايمان بخش برقرار شده است و لذا اگر چنين است آمريکا شکست نخواهد خورد.

ايران صرف نظر از مسئله هسته ای آن، به چند دليل بصورت يک خطر بزرگ برای آمريکا و اسرائيل درآمده است. امکانات جمعيتي، توانائی های فنی و علمي، دراختيار داشتن نسبی پول و امکانات مادي، نزديکی با نيروهای ضد اسرائيلی مانند حماس و حزب الله در منطقه، نفوذ قابل توجه در گروههای مختلف شيعی در عراق و فراتر از همه رئيس جمهوری که هالوکاست را مورد سئوال قرار می دهد و معتقد است اسرائيل بايد به نقطه ديگری از جهان منتقل شود ايران را از محدوده يک خطر بالقوه ارتقاء داده و بصورت يک خطر بالفعل درآورده است.

از ديدگاه پرزيدنت بوش و جناح نومحافظه کاری که هيچ گونه معارضی حتی در داخل سيستم سياسی خود آمريکا برای خود نمی بيند اگر مسئله ايران حل نگردد اوج گيری نيروهای ضد آمريکائی و اسرائيلی به نقطه ای بی بازگشت خواهد رسيد.

نظر بسياری از صاحب نظران سياسی در داخل و خارج ايران بر اين است که اصرار حکومت ايران ادامه برنامه هسته ای و بی اعتنائی به خواست جامعه جهانی و مآلا دادن حربه بدست آمريکا کشور را در معرض خطراتی بزرگ من جمله حمله آمريکا قرار می دهد. اين تحليل تا چه حد مقرون به صحت است؟

گهگاه در لابلای خطوط اخبار مطالبی آشکار می شود که عليرغم اهميت کمتر به آن توجه می شود. شان مک کورمک سخنگوی وزارت امور خارجه آمريکا در ماه می ۲۰۰۶ وقتی توسط خبرنگاران مورد سئوال قرار گرفت15 که آيا در کنار مشوقهای داده شده به ايران ممکن است تضمين امنيتی نيز به ايران داده شود گفت: اين چيزی نيست که فعلا برای ايالات متحده مطرح است. او گفت آمريکا حاضر نيست تضمين امنيتی به ايران بدهد. در مورد تضمين از سوی اروپائی ها نيز گفت من می گذارم آنها ازجانب خودشان هر چه می خواهند بگويند اما از طرف آمريکا چنين بحثی برروی ميز قرار ندارد. او باز به موضع پرزيدنت اشاره کرد که برای ما هيچ گزينه ای مردود نيست.

معضل اصلی در مسئله هسته ای نيز بنظر می رسد همين امر باشد که حتی در صورت توقف غنی سازی آمريکا حاضر به دادن تضمين امنيتی به ايران نيست. متاسفانه همگامی دموکراتها با خشن ترين جناح حزب جمهوريخواه به وخامت وضع و خطر حمله به ايران می افزايد. عناصر کليدی دموکرات تحت تاثير شديد و نيازمند به منابع مالی لابی اسرائيل16 برای پيش برد مبارزات انتخاباتی خود هيچگونه نرمشی در مقايسه با نومحافظه کاران نسبت به مسئله ايران از خود نشان نمی دهند.

ادواردز از کانديدا های مطرح دموکرات در سفر چند هفته پيش خود به اسرائيل درحاليکه ايران را خطر بزرگی برشمرد گفت "اگر آمريکائی ها آموزش داده شوند (رئيس جمهور خود را) در خصوص آنچه که بايد در مورد ايران عمل شود همراهی خواهند نمود." خانم کلينتون نيز چند روز پيش در جمع بزرگترين لابی اسرائيل ايپک (AIPAC) ايران را "خطری برای آمريکا" و "بزگترين تهديد برای اسرائيل" خوانده و گفت زمانی که سخن از روشن نمودن تکليف اين ملت می شود هيچ گزينه ای را نمی توان از روی ميز برداشت. او گفت17 "لازم است از هرگونه ابزاری که در اختيار داريم از جمله تلاشهای ديپلوماتيک، اقتصادی بعلاوه تهديد و استفاده از زور (در ارتباط با ايران) بهره بگيريم."

هاوارد دين (Haward Dean) رهبر حزب دموکرات، اين قهرمان ضد جنگ که دقيقا بدليل انتقادات بسيار تند از موضع جنپ طلبانه بوش از رسيدن به دور نهائی انتخابات رياست جمهوری دوره قبل بازماند اينک گوی سبقت را از ديگران ربوده است . او می گويد18: "دشمن را اشتباه انتخاب کرديم. ايران است که خطر واقعی است. ما سربازان خود را به اشتباه به عراق فرستاديم. صدام حسين موجود وحشتناکی بود ولی خطری برای آمريکا نبود. ايران است که خطرناک است."

ژنرال عودد تيرا (Oded Tira) از افسران بلند پايه سابق وزارت دفاع اسرائيل اخيرا نوشت19:” از آنجا که حمله آمريکا به ايران برای ما اهميت حياتی دارد ما بايد با لابی کردن با دموکراتها و سردبيران روزنامه های آمريکائی راه را برای پرزيدنت بوش هموار کنيم. ما بايد از هيلاری کلينتون و ديگر کانديداهای دموکرات کمک بگيريم که رسما از حمله به ايران حمايت کنند. ما بايد با کشورهای اروپائی از نزديک صحبت کرده و مانع از ايزوله شدن آمريکا در صورت دست زدن به حمله به ايران شويم. مخفيانه بايد با عربستان سعودی در تماس باشيم تا آنها نيز از ناحيه خود از آمريکا بخواهند که به اين حمله اقدام کند.”

با توجه به مطالب فوق و درحاليکه به گفته روزنامه نگاری چون سيمور هرش20 (Seymour Hersh) دولت آمريکا تا بدانجا پيش رفته که برای بستن راه نفوذ شيعيان و مشخصا "دولت ايران" به دور از چشم کنگره کمک های مالی گسترده ای به گروههای وابسته به القاعده می کند و نيز بنا بر افشاگری وی اتحادی جديد، جدی و اعلام نشده ای بين عربستان و اسرائيل و آمريکا عليه ايران بوجود آمده و در اين گيرودار که دولت جورج بوش در آتش بهانه ای برای حمله به ايران می سوزد و باز در همان اثنائی که هاشمی رفسنجانی مسئولان را از سخنان تند و خطرآفرين برحذر می دارد بناگاه آنها که اداره مملکت را به سخره21گرفته اند سخن از بريدن ترمز برنامه هسته ای می کنند.

اين گونه برخوردها در بهترين حالت معلول ضعف معلومات و بينش سياسی است.(نمونه های اين ضعف و بی اطلاعی را در جلسه شورای روابط خارجی آمريکا زمانی که جمعيت آمريکا در يک بحث مثلا علمی ۲۱۹ ميليون اعلام می شود22 يعنی با تقريب ۸۰ ميليون نفر خطا و ۳۰ سال عقب ماندگی اطلاعات، و يا در نامه به جورج بوش در خصوص تاريخچه پيدايش صهيونيسم و ريشه آن جنگ جهانی دوم محسوب می شود حال آنکه اين حرکت23 از قرن نوزدهم وبا ماجرای دريفوس24 آغاز گرديد، و يا ويدئو کليپ يک سخنرانی بهت آور که اينروزها در بسياری از سايتهای اينترنتی در خصوص توليد انرژی هسته ای توسط يک دانش آموز ۱۶ ساله در منزل خود می توان يافت)

با توجه به سابقه سی ساله موجه و قابل اعتماد سيمور هرش ومقاله ٢٥ فوريه او بنظر می رسد که نقشه حمله به ايران طراحی شده25. اما در بهترين شرايط اگر بتوان باور کرد که هدف آمريکا در شرايط کنونی حمله به ايران نيست و اين تنها يک طرح جايگزين و احتياطی است، در غوغای جنگ کلمات و جو سراسر از خصومت و شک و ترديد و نيز تحريکات دائمی آمريکا مانند دستگيری مامورين ايرانی و هم چنين تهديد و درشت گويی و زورگويی بی وقفه از سوی مسئولين ايالات متحده خطر برخورد ايران و آمريکا را از هر زمان ديگری در ۲۸ سال گذشته بيشتر کرده است.

منظر جورج بوش و ايدئولوژيک ديدن جهان ، حضور ليکوديک ها در کابينه وی (از جمله ديويد وارزمر David Wursmer و اليوت آبرامس Eliott Abrams )، حضور فعال دو لابی پرقدرت هوادار اسرائيل ايپک AIPAC و ا ای آی AEI در صحنه سياسی امروز آمريکا و بالاخره اونجليست های صهيونيست26 که از عمده ترين نيروهای اجتماعی و سياسی جامعه آمريکا و مدافعان اصلی جورج بوش در جامعه آمريکا بشمار می روند، متفقا معتقدند که نتايج حمله به ايران از دست دادن منافع کوتاه مدت و آنی است به ازای بدست آوردن منافعی دراز مدت و آتی.

آيا می توان به يافتن راه حلی برای خروج از بحران اميدوار بود؟ به پندار من قطعا.

اما نحوه تلقی و دانش مديريت اجرايی کشور فرسنگها از واقعيت فاصله دارد. آقای احمدی نژاد معتقد است که جهان به سمت احمدی نژاد شدن پيش می رود27 اما واقعيت اينست که نه تنها اين اتفاق در سطح جهان در حال رخ دادن نيست بلکه انتخابات اخير در ايران نيز نشان داد که حتی در داخل ايران هم جامعه از گرايش های احمدی نزاد گونه فاصله می گيرد.

تا دير نشده بايد طرحی نو درانداخت. عليرغم پيچيدگی وضعيت راه حل هائی آن چنانکه عزت و شرف ما ايرانيها هم حفظ شود و دست دريوزگی به سمت آمريکا دراز نکنيم وجود دارد. هر چه زمان بگذرد ما مجبوريم از موضع ضعيف تر و ذلت بار تری تن به خواسته های غيرمنطقی غرب بدهيم.

[Rasputin]

رئيس آژانس موشکی آمريکا اعلام کرد که کشورش در نظر دارد تا سيستم موشکی خود را در اروپا گسترش دهد که شامل استقرار يک سيستم رادار در منطقه قفقاز هم می شود.
به گزارش خبرگزاری مهر به نقل از خبرگزاری فرانسه، " هنری اوبرينگ" سپهبد نيروی هوايی آمريکا تصريح کرد که اين رادار راه دسترسی زودهنگام به هر گونه موشک دشمن را برای يک سيستم رادار بزرگتر که در جمهوری چک مشتقر می شود ، فراهم می کند.

وی در جمع خبرنگاران در مقر ناتو (سازمان آتلانتيک شنالی) در بروکسل افزود:" اين يک رادار قابل حمل و نقل است و چيزی است که شما می توانيد ظرف چند روز و خيلی سريع آن را نصب کنيد. ما زمانی را در اختيار داريم تا جايی را که قرار است اين سيستم درآنجا مستقر شود، پيدا کنيم."

وی درپاسخ به اين سوال که چه کشوری در منطقه قفقاز ممکن است خواهان ميزبانی برای اين سيستم باشد، گفت :" من مجاز نيستم تا درباره اين مسئله هر چقدر که بخواهم صحبت کنم و کافی است که بگويم ما خواهان استقرار اين رادار در آن منطقه هستيم."

اوبرينگ که در بروکسل و درگفتگوهای دوروزه با مقامات روسي، خطر بالقوه ای را که اين رادار متحرک می تواند بر روسيه تحميل کند، کم اهميت دانست و مدعی شد:" اين رادار در جهت ( مقابله با) ايران است. ما نمی توانيم آن را برای نظارت بر روسيه به طرف آن بچرخانيم و حتی اگر بتوانيم چنين کاری را انجام دهيم ديد آن به قدر کافی خوب نيست که موشک روسيه را رديابی کند."

آمريکا چندی پيش ازلهستان وجمهوری چک تقاضا کرده بود تا اجازه دهند سيستم سپرموشکی آمريکا در اين کشورها نصب شود واين کشورها نيز تا حدی با اين درخواست موافقت کرده اند اما اين اقدام آمريکا و چراغ سبز لهستان و چک به درخواست کاخ سفيد با عکس العمل و انتقاد روسيه مواجه شده است.

ايالات متحده هدف ازاستقرار چنين سيستمی را مقابله با تهديدهای موشکی ايران و کره شمالی عنوان کرده، اما روسيه و اوکراين بر اين باورند که اين دو کشور از چنين توانی که بتوانند آمريکا را تهديد کنند برخوردار نيستند و به زعم مقامات درمسکو اين سيستم با هدف کنترل توانايی موشکی روسيه صورت می گيرد.

از سوی ديگر درحالی که هنوز اختلاف واشنگتن و کرملين درباره نصب سيستم سپرموشکی درچک و لهستان تمام نشده، اخباری منتشر شده که حکايت از تصميم آمريکا برای نصب يک سيستم موشکی ديگر درخاک انگليس دارد.

[Rasputin]

مصاحبه جان بولتن با راديو اروپای آزاد- ترجمه سياوش جوان
بهترين گزينه، از نظر من
تغيير رژيم در ايران است




جان بولتون نماينده آمريکا سابق امريکا در سازمان ملل طی مصاحبه ای با عليرضا طاهری از راديو اروپای آزاد گفت: من سياست تغيير رژيم حاکم بر ايران را به تعليق فعاليت های هسته ای آن ترجيح ميدهم.

راديو: ناوگان دريايی استنيس اخيرا در دريای عمان به ناوگان دريايی آيزنهاور پيوسته است.تحليلگران معتقد هستند چنين تدارک نظامی نميتواند با هدف شکست شورشيان عراق باشد و معتقدند اصلی ترين و يا تنها دليل و هدف چنين اقداماتی حمله به ايران است آيا شما موافقيد؟

بولتون: حضور ناوها به دليل شرايط عراق است. اما به نظر من دولت ايران بايد شرايط آمريکا که تمام گزينه ها در صورت عدم توقف فعاليت های هسته ای ايران را روی ميز نگه داشته است را جدی بگيرد.

راديو: روسيه و چين تمايلی به تحريم و فشار به حکومت ايران برای تن دادن به خواست آمريکا ندارند. ايران اکنون آشکارا به قطعنامه شورای امنيت بی اعتنايی کرده است. فکر می کنيد شرايط روسيه و چين در حمايت از آمريکا در قضيه ايران چگونه خواهد بود؟

بولتون: من فکر می کنم روسيه و چين تاکنون اجازه نداده اند تحريم های اقتصادی تاثيرات کامل خود را بر ايران بگذارند. من فکر می کنم همين امر باعث ضعيف شدن تاثير تحريم های شورای امنيت بر ايران است و اين شرايط خوبی برای شورای امنيت نيست. اين به معنای خروج آمريکا و تمام کشورهايی که از فعاليت های هسته ای ايران نگران هستند از شورای امنيت در صورت وقوع چنين شرايطی خواهد بود.

راديو: برخی از کارشناسان می گويند حضور آمريکا و ايران در کنفرانس عراق نشانه ای از ترک در ديوار بين ايران و آمريکاست؟

بولتون: اين کنفرانس به پيشنهاد دولت عراق برگزار می شود و شبيه کاری است که در مورد افغانستان اتفاق افتاد و بسيار موفقيت آميز بود. اين کنفرانس برای بوجود آوردن راهی برای مذاکره آمريکا با ايران نيست، بلکه صرفا در مورد عراق و با هدف بهبود شرايط مردم عراق است.

راديو: آيا شما فکر می کنيد فشار آمريکا تاثيری بر ايران خواهد گذاشت؟

بولتون: من تاکنون نشانه واقعی از تصميم دولت ايران برای متوقف کردن فعاليت های هسته ايش نديده ام. آنها هيچ توجهی به قطعنامه های آژانس و شورای امنيت نکرده اند و اگر آنان به اين نوع اقداماتشان ادامه دهند- که مطئنا به نظر ميرسد ادامه خواهند داد – سپس من فکر می کنم ما راهی نداريم غير از اينکه گام های بعدی را برداريم. من شخصا فکر می کنم که حکومت فعلی ايران تا زمانی که سر کار است به توليد سلاح اتمی ادامه خواهد داد – چيزی که يکی از دلايل من برای استقبال از تغيير رژيم در ايران است.

راديو: منظور شما از گام های بعدی چيست؟ حمله نظامی که رئيس جمهور بوش بارها اعلام کرده هنوز به عنوان يک گزينه روی ميز است؟

بولتون: من فکر می کنم رئيس جمهور زمانی که می گويد تمام گزينه ها روی ميز است، صحبتش کاملا جدی است. همانطور که ديک چينی و جان مک کين گفتند هيچ کس دوست ندارد که شرايط به سمت توسل به اقدامات نظامی پيش رود، اما گزينه بدتر از همه اينها وجود رژيم فعلی در تهران با سلاح هسته ای است. بنابر اين من فکر می کنم که اگر دولتمردان ايران متوجه شده باشند که دولت آمريکا چگونه در مورد حتی احتمال اقدام نظامی عليه ايران فکر می کند بايد سريعا در سياست هايشان تغيير دهند.

راديو:اما رژيم ايران عميقا معتقد است که نيروهای آمريکا در باتلاق عراق گير افتاده اند و آمريکا در شرايطی نيست که نيروی نظامی خود را با حمله به ايران درگير يک مسابقه نظامی وسيعتر در منطقه کند؟

بولتون: با توجه به شرايط تاسيسات هسته ای ايران من فکر نمی کنم گزينه نطامی شامل جنگ بر روی زمين باشد. من فکر می کنم حمله شامل نابودی تاسيسات اتمی ايران خواهد بود که از راههای متنوع ديگری غير از حمله زمينی قابل انجام است. بنابراين من اگر جای حکومت ايران بودم روی چنين شرايطی حساب باز نمی کردم.