Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Discordia tra UK e USA su un attacco al nucleare Iraniano - The Times

Sunday Times (London) January 23, 2005
 Blair's loyalty tested as Bush menaces Iran
 
 In-Depth Coverage  
By Tony Allen-Mills Washington
 AFTER two years of unswerving solidarity over the war in Iraq, Tony 
Blair's relationship with President George W Bush is coming under strain 
from the newly revived threat of an American military attack on nuclear 
facilities in Iran.
 British officials are increasingly concerned that months of patient 
European led diplomacy aimed at curbing the ayatollahs' nuclear 
ambitions may suddenly explode in a torrent of bunker-busting bombs 
dropped by B-2 stealth bombers.
 Reports last week that US special forces are already scouting for 
targets in Iran have fanned concern that London and Washington are 
heading for an embarrassing split over American mistrust of Tehran.
 Despite Blair's commitment to the so-called EU-3 Iran initiative 
launched by Britain, France and Germany, a consensus is emerging in 
Washington that an approach dubbed by some officials as "European carrot 
and American stick" -and by others as "good cop, bad cop" -is failing to 
produce results.
 European negotiators were recently described by David Kay, the former 
US weapons inspector, as "impotently manipulable". A prominent 
Washington defence hawk warned: "At some point the Americans are going 
to turn to the Europeans and say, 'The goal is disarmament but all we 
are getting is arms control. It's time for a bigger stick'."
 Although Downing Street publicly insists that Bush and Blair remain 
"closely in touch" on the Iranian threat, some British officials are 
privately concerned that Dick Cheney, the hardline American 
vice-president, is driving the administration's policy on Iran.
 "You look around at potential trouble spots. Iran is right at the top 
of the list," Cheney said last week.
 There is also concern in London that the Pentagon may be ordered to act 
on the basis of flawed intelligence. Despite the debacle over Iraq's 
supposed weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon appears to be relying 
heavily on satellite photographs of Iranian installations that British 
sources describe as alarmingly inconclusive.
 "They tell us, 'Look, bulldozers have been down this road three times. 
Something's going on'," said one well informed source. "They are very 
dismissive when European humint (human intelligence) suggests something 
different."
 One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian 
nuclear issue as "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion". But whereas 
President John F Kennedy successsfully forced Moscow to withdraw its 
missiles from Cuba in 1962, much of Washington already appears convinced 
that the ayatollahs will not back down.
 "I think the administration takes the view that this (European) 
negotiation is bound to fail," said Robert Einhorn, a former State 
Department adviser on non-proliferation.
 "I quite frankly am pessimistic," added Kay, who led the futile 
American search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I think the 
regime is in fact hell bent on this capability.
 "I think it would be a huge mistake to take the military option off the 
table, even if the Europeans will never agree to it."
 Even some of the president's critics agree that Iran has become an 
unacceptable threat. At her confirmation hearings before the Senate 
foreign affairs committee last week, Condoleezza Rice, the incoming US 
secretary of state, was asked by a Democratic senator about her views on 
the nuclear issue.
 When she replied that Tehran "has to be held accountable for its 
unwillingness to live up to its international obligations", Senator Bill 
Nelson of Florida replied: "Hopefully sooner rather than later."
 Bush also signalled in his inauguration speech that military setbacks 
in Iraq had not shifted his focus from other members of his "axis of 
evil". He warned of the dangers of tyrants who allowed violence to 
"gather and multiply in destructive power ... and raise a mortal threat".
 Bush made no specific reference to Tehran, but Rice at her confirmation 
hearing listed Iran alongside North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma and 
Belarus as "outposts of tyranny".
 Complicating the Iranian issue is the position of Israel, which has 
vowed to act if Tehran's nuclear development continues. Shaul Mofaz, 
Israel's defence minister, warned two years ago that "under no 
circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in 
Iranian possession".
 Since then Israeli officials have consistently complained that Iran is 
approaching the "point of no return" in its uranium enrichment and 
plutonium production programmes.
 Cheney acknowledged last week that Israel "might well decide to act 
first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the 
diplomatic mess afterwards".
 Despite reports in Israel that Washington is secretly encouraging Tel 
Aviv to strike, many US analysts believe that the limited range of 
Israeli air force bombers would make the mission exceptionally perilous. 
Learning a lesson from Israel's successful strike on Iraq's Osirak 
reactor in 1981, Iran is believed to have located key elements of its 
programme as far from Israel as possible.
 "I spent a lot of time with Israeli air force officers who were looking 
hard at this problem and they all believed they cannot do it," said 
Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and author of The Persian Puzzle: 
the Conflict Between Iran and America.
 He added: "I know we would all like the Israelis to take care of this 
problem for us, but that is why you are hearing them shout so loudly. 
They are deathly afraid that the Iranians are getting close. They know 
they can't take care of it and they want us to do so."
 American officials also recognise that an Israeli attack would demolish 
the Middle Eastern peace process and provide Arab terrorist groups with 
a potentially lethal recruiting tool.
 "The attack is better done by the US than by the Israelis with US 
connivance," said John Pike, a defence specialist who is convinced that 
Washington is waiting for an early diplomatic breakdown in order to 
launch an attack.
 "I think it's a question of months, not years. I think they are 
absolutely serious when they say that atomic ayatollahs are 
unacceptable."
 The main targets of any attack would include a 1,000-megawatt reactor 
under construction at Bushehr on the Gulf; a heavy water reactor and 
uranium conversion facility at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre in 
central Iran; a uranium enrichment plant at eastern Natanz and research 
facilities at Arak.
 Special forces saboteurs might be used to attack certain urban-based 
sites, including a suspect electrical company in Tehran.
 Yet British and other officials warn that intelligence on Iranian 
nuclear development is far from complete. While the ayatollahs have 
boasted about some of their nuclear assets, American experts are divided 
over whether a parallel, clandestine programme is being developed in 
hardened bunkers out of sight of US satellites.
 "We just don't know where all the stuff is," said one British official. 
"We don't know how far they have dispersed or duplicated facilities and 
we don't know how much of what we can see is dummy or decoy 
construction. In short, we can't be sure we've got all the targets to 
stop them from building a weapon."
 Some nuclear specialists argue that Saddam Hussein's Iraq showed how 
easy it is to hide nuclear facilities. "When we went into the Gulf war 
(in 1991), we thought we knew where all the Iraqi nuclear facilities 
were," said Pollack. "We bombed them to smithereens. Then David Kay went 
in and said, 'Oh, by the way, you missed 60% of them'."
 Pike is among other specialists who believe that "what you see is what 
you get" in the Iranian nuclear programme. "The infrastructure that we 
see basically replicates what we see in Pakistan," he said. "And it has 
never been suggested that Pakistan had a massive clandestine 
infrastructure."
 He argued that America should strike at night against buildings housing 
nuclear scientists and workers. "They need to maximise the number of 
casualties," he said.
 "You can rebuild a building in a couple of years, but it could retard 
the programme for decades if they have to replace all their people."
 Yet the ayatollahs scarcely appear worried by US military threats. 
"They do not have accurate information about our military capabilities," 
Ali Shamkhani, Iran's defence minister, retorted last week. Another 
government spokesman dismissed reports of American special force 
activity in Iraq as "a ridiculous bluff" and "psychological warfare".
 The official Iranian news agency warned: "Today the Islamic republic 
has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still 
remain unknown ... It is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome 
rain of fire and death."
 Behind the ayatollahs' posturing lies what British officials believe is 
a persuasive argument against a military attack: far from encouraging 
Iranian reformers to rise up against their theocratic government, any 
form of US intervention might unite the country behind Ayatollah Ali 
Khamenei, the country's supreme leader.
 © Copyright 2005, Times Newspapers Limited


Oramai chi non vuol essere invaso deve avere armi atomiche.
Incomincia un'altro Tango.
Del resto non ci sono vie di ritorno, l' Iran sa di essere nel mirino e se
non e' oggi sara' domani si trova gli Yankee in casa.
Unica chances bombe atomiche, per difendersi, hanno ragione.
Gli Yankee non possono tollerare che armi nucleari siano nelle mani di gente
come gli ayatohallah, e' un icubo, hanno ragione.
Arriviamo ai soliti casi storici dove la guerra e' inevitabile.
Come sempre molti si rendono conto e tentano di tutto per evitare la
catastrofe, vengono tacciati di incapacita', allora spazio agli eroi, quando
la boria supera la ragione flash.
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
 
The US believes Iran is years away from developing nuclear arms
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it
will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.
Enrichment activities
Mr Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it
"invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was
destroyed.
"If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will
definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make
nuclear fuel," he said.
 
 Uranium enrichment is Iran's right
Hassan Rohani
Iranian nuclear negotiator
"But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk," he
added. "They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks."
Mr Rohani said that not even the offer of lifting US sanctions or security
guarantees from Washington would be enough to make Iran abandon its
enrichment programme.
"Uranium enrichment is Iran's right," he said.
Iran has agreed to suspend all its enrichment activities during negotiations
with Britain, France and Germany.
The US is not taking part in negotiations, and wants Iran to be referred to
the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.
The European countries would like to use a package of incentives to induce
Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but Tehran has said it is
disappointed with what is on offer so far.
It says it can only continue talks for a matter of months, not years.
Enriched uranium can be used to produce nuclear power, but the technology
behind it can also be used to develop weapons-grade nuclear material.
BBC
 
Saluti Cad Ali'
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Scusa ma perche' non posti autonomamente l'articolo? Nell'articolo che 
ho citato la questione non e' la capacita' di risposta strategica 
dell'Iran - bassa - ma l'opportunita' politica di colpirlo da parte 
degli occidentali.
Se non vedi la differenza, forma autonomamente la tua madrassa, e lascia 
perdere le sottigliezze occidentali...
Am.


Se non ti interessa puoi fare a meno di leggerlo.
Hai dei problemi a riguardo?
Se non vedi il nesso tra le due uscite stampa, vuol dire che ti manca la
visione di insieme, giusto ieri mi domandavo il perche' della nota Iraniana,
oggi e' piu' chiaro.
Inizia la campagna di raccolta della coalizione, questi sono messaggi.
