mebb.de
Iran-Krise

Helene Cooper und David E. Singer liefern heute in der NYT einen Update zu den Flügelkämpfen im Weißen Haus über den Kurs gegenüber dem Iran.

The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Das ist nicht unbedingt. Im Verhältnis USA – Iran scheint es (relativ) Moderate und Hardliner auf beiden Seiten zu geben.

Aber laut Cooper / Singer spitzen sich die Dinge zu.

Mr. Bush has publicly vowed that he would never “tolerate”? a nuclear Iran, and the question at the core of the debate within the administration is when and whether it makes sense to shift course.

The issue was raised at a closed-door White House meeting recently when the departing deputy national security adviser, J. D. Crouch, told senior officials that President Bush needed an assessment of how the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program was likely to play out over the next 18 months, said officials briefed on the meeting.

In response, R. Nicholas Burns, an under secretary of state who is the chief American strategist on Iran, told the group that negotiations with Tehran could still be going on when Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009. The hawks in the room reported later that they were deeply unhappy — but not surprised — by Mr. Burns’s assessment, which they interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that the Bush administration had no “red line”? beyond which Iran would not be permitted to step.

Die “Hardliner” in der Bush Regierung drängen darauf, dass eine rote Linie definiert wird, die das iranische Atomprogramm nicht überschreiten darf.

Only a few weeks ago, one of Mr. Cheney’s top aides, David Wurmser, told conservative research groups and consulting firms in Washington that Mr. Cheney believed that Ms. Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing, and that by next spring Mr. Bush might have to decide whether to take military action.

Wie ernst solche Ausführungen zu nehmen sind, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Für einen Militärschlag gegen den Iran fehlen dem Präsidenten sowohl die Unterstützung des Kongresses, die militärischen Kapazitäten sowie eine Strategie. Aber es lässt aufhorchen, dass solche Pläne immer noch im Weißen Haus Anhänger finden.

Den „Moderaten” kommt das Kriegsgeschrei momentan eigentlich eher zur Hilfe.

Mr. Burns and officials from the Treasury Department have been trying to use the mounting conservative calls for a military strike to press Europe and Russia to expand economic sanctions against Iran. Just last week, Israel’s transportation minister and former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, visited Washington and told Ms. Rice that sanctions must be strong enough to get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium by the end of 2007.

While Mr. Mofaz did not threaten a military strike, Israeli officials said he told Ms. Rice that by the end of the year, Israel “would have to reassess where we are.”?

The State Department and Treasury officials are pushing for a stronger set of United Nations Security Council sanctions against members of Iran’s government, including an extensive travel ban and further moves to restrict the ability of Iran’s financial institutions to do business outside of Iran. Beyond that, American officials have been trying to get European and Asian banks to take additional steps, outside of the Security Council, against Iran.

“We’re saying to them, ‘Look, you need to help us make the diplomacy succeed, and you guys need to stop business as usual with Iran,’ “? an administration official said. “We’re not just sitting here ignoring reality.”?

Das Dilemma bestand eigentlich spätestens seit dem Zeitpunkt, als der Fall Iran an den UN Sicherheitsrat überstellt wurde. Da der Sicherheitsrat auf der Basis eines Konsens unter den fünf permanenten Mitgliedern operiert, wird es schwierig, Zustimmung für einschneidende Maßnahmen zu erhalten.

Bleiben die Sanktionen aber wirkungslos, werden die Stimmen lauter, die nach (unilateralen) Militäraktionen rufen.