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.
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.
Iranian students hold
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] |
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.
Critics of the George W. Bush administration expressed alarm about explosive
new reports that the president is mulling military options to knock out Iran's
nuclear program.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US
television Sunday that he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military
plans, but he suggested a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would
be extremely risky.
"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should
not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over,"
said Zinni.
"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area
where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and
gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct
of terrorism," he said.
Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of reports this
weekend saying that the administration is seriously considering military action
against Iran, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts.
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."
The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment
program. But Iran has so far refused to halt its nuclear activity, saying the
small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and not for development
of nuclear weapons.