US: There is little appetite in the US for the use of force, Denis Staunton is told in Washington
When United States undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns discussed Iran's nuclear programme with counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China in Moscow this week, he stressed that Washington remained committed to finding a diplomatic solution.
"Obviously, the United States always keeps all options on the table . . . but we're focused on diplomacy," he says.
Reports that US military planners have discussed armed strikes against Iran, and President George Bush's refusal to rule out an attack, have persuaded some Washington observers that the administration is preparing public opinion for military action.
The US and Britain want the UN Security Council to pass a resolution demanding that Iran halts uranium enrichment, with the threat of sanctions and possible military action if Tehran does not comply.
However, while Washington is determined to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, there is little appetite for the use of force, even among defence hawks close to the administration.
Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence in the Bush administration and a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Irish Times that the threat of force is aimed at reinforcing diplomatic pressure.
"The Iranians have no incentive to necessarily give in to any sort of diplomatic pressure and that's why there are other options on the table, such as economic sanctions, multilateral or UN sanctions," he says. "Of course, there's always the view that if you don't think that you can live with an Iranian nuclear programme that contains nuclear weapons, then there's always the military option."
America's allies have made clear that they regard a military strike as, in the words of British foreign secretary Jack Straw "completely nuts", but Mr Brookes says that the support of allies might not be necessary.
"The fact is that the United States doesn't need anybody else to undertake a military attack on Iran that would deal effectively with the nuclear programme. But obviously that's the last option," he says.
For the moment, US diplomacy is focused on persuading other countries to back economic sanctions against Iran and Mr Burns claimed this week that most of the UN Security Council is now willing to consider sanctions. Russia and China have yet to be persuaded, but the intensified diplomatic pressure was enough to inspire Iranian negotiators to make a surprise appearance at the talks in Moscow this week.
Mr Brookes acknowledges that the US could pay a high price for a military strike against Iran if Tehran retaliates by fuelling the insurgency in Iraq, sponsoring terrorist attacks on the US and its allies and creating chaos in the world oil market.
He argues, however, that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran goes beyond the question of how the regime in Tehran might use such weapons to the impact it would have on neighbouring states. "If Iran goes nuclear, you're likely to see a significant proliferation problem in that part of the world," he says. "The Saudis are not going to stand by and let the Iranians go nuclear. The Egyptians probably aren't. The Turks have said so. So this is a very destabilising act."
Some US Middle East experts have suggested that Washington should support the formation of a Gulf security council, possibly modelled on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
Such a body would recognise Iran's leading role in the region and could provide a framework within which the US could guarantee that it would not seek to change Iran's regime or borders if Tehran complied with nuclear non-proliferation rules.
Mr Brookes says such a security guarantee is an option that has been discussed within the administration.
"I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility. The Clinton administration did a lot to reach out to Iran and the Iranians kept them at arms distance. This regime, which is rather repressive, benefits from making the United States an enemy."