"an attack on Iran would be a disaster=85"
June 10, 2008
New York Times Editorial
Threatening Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10tue1.html
Israeli leaders spent last week talking tough about Iran and
threatening possible military action. The United States and the other
major powers need to address Tehran=92s nuclear ambitions, but with more
assertive diplomacy =97 including greater financial pressures =97 not more
threats or war planning.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who is bedeviled by a
corruption scandal that could drive him from office, led the charge.
=93The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means,=94 he said in
Wa****ngton, a day before meeting President Bush at the White House.
Then Israel=92s trans****tation minister, Shaul Mofaz, who is jockeying
to replace Mr. Olmert as head of the ruling Kadima Party if the prime
minister is forced to resign, declared that an Israeli attack on
Iranian nuclear sites looks =93unavoidable.=94 [p.s. the price for a
barrel of petroleum skyrocketed to a new record high almost
immediately after this]
We don=92t know what=92s going on behind closed doors in Wa****ngton =97 or
what Mr. Olmert heard from Mr. Bush. But saber-rattling is not a
strategy. And an attack on Iran by either country would be
disastrous.
Unlike in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq=92s nuclear reactor at
Osirak, there is no single target. A sustained bombing campaign would
end up killing many civilians and still might not cripple Iran=92s
nuclear program. Tehran also has many frightening ways to retaliate.
And even Arab states who fear Iran shudder at the thought of America,
or its ally Israel, bombing another Muslim country and the backlash
that that could provoke.
Mr. Olmert may be trying to divert attention from his political
troubles. Still, there is no denying a growing and understandable
sense of urgency in Israel, which Iran=92s president has threatened with
elimination. A recent re****t by United Nations inspectors on Iran=92s
nuclear progress, and worrisome links to military programs, has only
fanned those fears.
Javier Solana, the European Union=92s foreign policy chief, is scheduled
to visit Tehran later this month to discuss, in more detail, an
incentives package first offered in 2006 by the United States and
other major powers. It is likely to fall far short =97 both in
incentives and punishments =97 of what is needed to get Tehran=92s
attention.
There is no indication it will contain tougher sanctions =97 including a
broader ban on doing business with Iranian banks and bans on arms
sales and new investments. It also needs a stronger commitment from
Wa****ngton to lift sanctions and to fully engage Iran if it abandons
its nuclear efforts. The United States is the only major power not
sending a diplomat with Mr. Solana.
Senators Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on holding direct talks
with Iran (Mr. Obama would; Mr. McCain would not). But last week, both
endorsed enhanced sanctions, including limiting gasoline ex****ts to
Iran. That is an idea well worth exploring. Iran relies on a half-
dozen companies for 40 percent of its gasoline im****ts. The United
Nations Security Council is unlikely to authorize a squeeze, but quiet
American and European appeals might persuade some companies to slow
deliveries, and it would grab Tehran=92s attention.
On his trip to Europe this week, President Bush is expected to press
the Europeans to further reduce Iran-related ex****t credits and cut
ties with Iran=92s financial institutions. He also must make clear that
America will do its part on incentives. We wish he had the will and
the skill to propose a grand bargain =97 and to send Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to deliver it. Unfortunately, there=92s no sign of
that. At a minimum, he should send a senior official with Mr. Solana
to Tehran.
If sanctions and incentives cannot be made to work, the voices arguing
for military action will only get louder. No matter what aides may be
telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert =97 or what they may be telling each
other =97 an attack on Iran would be a disaster.
|
