It's official
(read the story):
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 knew this was coming. We knew the neo-cons were planning this. The problem is: the American public doesn't know.
So, I ask you, when you're out campaigning on Kerry's behalf, have voters consider whether they want Bush to start yet another war. You'll hear the common response: the US doesn't have enough troops, the government is already too far in debt, we're already involved in 2 wars, Bush would never reinstate the draft; or perhaps you'll hear something like this - they have nukes!
Does any sane person out there actually believe that Bush will just sit back and let diplomacy work? That may be his stance with N Korea but look at the military might of that country. That's the last place Bush would attack. Iran, on the other hand, is coveniently situated next to Iraq. The US had the largest embassy in the world in Iraq. Military positioning and readiness can be easily achieved within Iraq. Israel is quite prepared to send in any help they can muster. As soon as Iraq's new government is elected, it won't take Bush long to wash his hands of the country - as he's done with Afghanistan.