Report on Iran’s Nuclear program, U.S. Appears Placid

Washington is holding back noticeably this time after the explosive publication by the International Atomic Energy Agency about the Iranian nuclear program. U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta considers a military strike dangerous. What is lurking behind this change of direction?

Possibly the most obvious reaction to the latest news from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the Iranian nuclear program comes from Washington — obviously, because holding back is unusual for the U.S. While the nuclear dispute with Iran is sharpening again, it appears that the U.S. is taking it calmly this time. One should continue to isolate Iran and keep up the pressure, says an unexcited statement from the White House. The foreign ministry announced that it wants to consult with the allies first. President Barack Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, even praised the existing U.N. sanctions expressly: “We know that these efforts will bring results.”*

Panetta, finally took it one step further and warned with unusual frankness about a possible military strike against Iran: “One has to be careful because of the unintended consequences.” Panetta’s appearance should be seen as a hint that the U.S. government has no interest in escalating a nuclear dispute with Iran at this time. Panetta’s warning was at the same time a reminder for Israel, which discusses possible military strikes openly. Although it is not customary for the U.S. to do so , Panetta excluded military action as a last option. The head of the Pentagon rejected all those who could see a solution to the problem by bombing Iran’s nuclear plants: Military strikes could only set the Iranian nuclear program back three years at the most, while the consequences for the region would be severe.

Hardliners Lost Ground

If you can remember earlier showdowns in the nuclear dispute with Iran, you may shake your head in bewilderment after hearing such statements from Washington. For a long time, the standard superpower formula was to leave all options on the table — an unconcealed threat of military strikes. The hardliners lost ground during the Bush era because of then Vice President Dick Cheney, who, according to the U.S. media, wanted to bomb Iran. Last but not least, after Afghanistan and Iraq, the military showed little appetite for new adventures and their inevitable consequences.

Nevertheless, the White House repeated the official U.S. position whereby a nuclear-armed Iran would be an “intolerable threat to regional and international security” for Washington. For some time, Washington’s think tanks openly thought that if an Iran with nuclear arms would not be held in stalemate by a well-aimed containment strategy, like the Soviet Union was during the Cold War, given all other threats, it would promote the spread of nuclear weapons especially in the Near and Middle East.

Dennis Ross Resigns

The Obama regime is already being questioned in the U.S. about its handling of the nuclear dispute — for continuing a diplomatic path with Iran and for buying time. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney accused Obama in the Wall Street Journal of doing nothing, while Iran is making rapid progress in the development of nuclear weapons. In the face of Israel’s worries and fears, this is a very fitting theme for the coming year’s U.S. presidential election campaign, in which Jewish voters will be heavily solicited. The fact that the U.S. special representative responsible for Iran, Dennis Ross, resigned could further escalate the crisis. Ross was considered Israel’s advocate and a proponent of a harsher stand against Teheran. After all, according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. wants to deliver 4.900 bunker-busting bombs to the United Arab Emirates, a suspicious neighbor of Iran’s.

*Editor’s note: This quote could not be verified.