WASHINGTON - The White House on Sunday sought 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.
 |
|
| An Iranian
student holds a placard during a protest against negotiation with the U.S.
in front of the Iran Supreme National Security Council's building in
Tehran, Iran April 8, 2006. [Reuters] |
|
Administration officials ¡ª from
President Bush on down ¡ª 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."
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.
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 he
has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability which in
turn could be used for nuclear weapons, but 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."