"The great army's of the east and west will meet on the

fields of Armageddon."

hank
.......................................
the US debates military strikes on 'nuclear Iran'
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: September 15 2004 19:31 | Last updated: September 15 2004
19:31

The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a
nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington
over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's
nuclear programme.


Analysts close to the administration say military options are under
consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that
indicate the US is preparing actual action.

When asked, senior officials repeat that President George W. Bush is
removing no option from the table - but that he believes the issue can
be solved by diplomatic means.

Diplomacy on Wednesday appeared stalled.

The US and its European allies on the board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency continued to wrangle over the wording of a
resolution on Iran which insists it has no intention of using its
advanced civilian programme to make a bomb.

Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough
intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing
Iran's programme for a while.

But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for
the aftermath.

That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered
in the debate over "regime change".

Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr
Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this
pass ultimately."

Tom Donnelly, an analyst with PNAC and the American Enterprise
Institute, says that while inflicting military damage is possible, the
consequences rule out this option.

If the US started down the military road, it would have to consider
going the whole way to invasion and occupation.

"We have to start thinking in terms of a post-nuclear Iran," he said,
describing the Europeans as "hopeless" on Iran, and India and China
boosting their energy relations with the clerical regime.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
says the US and its allies are in a state of denial, that it is too
late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It already has the capacity,
he says.

Neither of the US and European options "to bomb or bribe Iran" would
succeed and both could make it worse.

Mr Sokolski describes as "highly irresponsible" the idea that the US
can let Israel do the job.

The short-term benefits of air strikes would have to be weighed
against the costs of a blow to US efforts to foster more moderate
Islamic rule in Iran and the Middle East.

The military option is laid out in detail by Globalsecurity.org, a
defence think-tank.

"The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will
close in 2005," it warns, as key plants come on stream next year. It
says Iran has two dozen suspected nuclear sites.

But it adds that the absence of significant numbers of US stealth
aircraft, early warning aircraft and other assets in the region
indicate that the US is not actively considering air strike options at
the moment.