Perhaps the diplomatic tool that Rice is talking are the same ones used before the invasion of Iraq. On the question of an attack:”The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time.”
Rumours of US special forces in Iran may well be true – and rumour also has it that SAS forces may be deployed to the region soon. Iran is threading a very fine line, and on the back of Bush’s STOU speech, is top of the hitlist. The tacit encouragement of pro-democracy sections within Iranian society by Bush could be hinting at something greater – a want by the administration to see UN sanctions imposed, once European negotiations fail. Sanctions could well encourage an armed uprising, exactly what the US wants, or it may not. If Iran continues to pursue an arms program then either the US or Israel will lose patience within 2005, and air strikes at the very least could result.
Am I the only one that thinks that maybe, just maybe, European countries will be portrayed as the bad guys once negotiations fail, or that they may be sabotaged by the US because of an impatient need for military action?
I think you’re absolutely right. The Europeans will certainly be protrayed as either bad guys or ineffectual, exactly the way the UN was portrayed after they failed to deal with the “WMD threat” posed by Hussein.
I do think you’re understating one point, though. I think the US is ALREADY sabotaging the talks by not being involved in them. Nearly every country involved in the negotiations has said they are doomed to failure wihout the US as a participant. It’s all very interestingly hypocritical. Bush told several EU news organizations that diplomacy is the first line of defense for a president, but refuses to even come to this table.
Personally, I think the US won’t get involved with the talks because they MIGHT be successful and we would then be bound to an agreement
that–horrrors–might NOT involve military action… the one thing this administration would absolutely never rule out.