| Posted By Amina Anderson July 12, 2008 Recent developments about Iran’s nuclear case are so confusing. Amid reports of progress concerning the European package that was recently offered to Iran, there are also threats of sanctions and military force. According to an article on the BBC, the warning by the senior U.S. military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for U.S. forces might ease fears that Washington would initiate or participate in any strike against the Islamic Republic. Adm Mullen, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, also said that the solution to Iran’s nuclear program “still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure". But Adm Mullen, who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats," leaving open the possibility that Israel may decide to attack Iran by itself. According to the BBC, the Admiral’s comments did not resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table. His views only indicate that the U.S. military is stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot be involved in a third war. Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing". Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over how to handle Iran’s nuclear program. Although military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush, it wouldn’t necessarily be the determining factor. Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003. But Israel, believed to be the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has never believed that Iran has stopped trying to build nuclear weapons. Many analysts are now saying that the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option. Speculations about an Israeli strike against Iran heightened after Israel carried out a major military exercise last month that U.S. officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack against Tehran’s nuclear sites. An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme". In response, Iranian leaders warned that any attack would lead to horrible consequences, including targeting U.S. occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and closing the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Gulf, a move that would have disastrous effects on oil prices. The timing of any Israeli attack against Iran is still uncertain. A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached. The first red line would be Iran’s production of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The second would be Tehran’s acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel. The IAEA would spot any move to cross these limits. As for the Russian S-300, Iran said last December that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered. So exactly how and when these “red lines” might be reached is not clear | 
Save
