January 27, 2005
BY ROBERT
NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
"We are not going to war against Iran,'' a
senior Bush administration official told me this week. This
declarative statement came from an official who is not known for
rash declarations and is inclined to guard his comments. It followed
heavy static in Washington about U.S. intentions toward Iran set off
by President Bush's second inaugural address.
If Iranian intelligence were monitoring American
''chatter'' the way the United States listens to its adversaries,
Tehran might well think something was up. A famous investigative
reporter claims commandos are working behind the lines in Iran. The
president's address seems to proclaim a global crusade for
democracy, with Iran a probable target. The vice president goes on
an offbeat radio talk show and speculates about Israel attacking
Iran.
Yet, as the senior official confirmed, U.S. military
action against the Iranians is not a realistic option. Pentagon and
State Department sources say a single blow could not eliminate
Iran's nuclear capability, and an attempted change of regime in
Tehran would entail a military effort the United States cannot
undertake. The problem of Iran deepens for the world's only
superpower when rhetoric outstrips reality.
After Bush's 2002 State of the Union address linked
Iran with Iraq in the ''axis of evil,'' Secretary of State Colin
Powell behind the scenes warned how difficult it would be to attack
Iran. Powell told of Pentagon planning during the early 1990s when
he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Iran, with four times the land
area and three times the population of Iraq, posed a massive
challenge to a U.S.-led army.
Moreover, public support for the Iranian theocracy
appears much greater than the popular backing for Saddam Hussein's
secular dictatorship. Indeed, U.S. intelligence shows opposition to
the rule of the mullahs has declined from a high level just six
months ago. Change of regime from within seems most unlikely. The
sense of being threatened by the West may have strengthened
theocratic rule.
That threat was heightened by investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker indicating U.S. Special
Forces operatives are behind the lines in Iran, preparing for
possible air strikes against nuclear facilities. Sources have told
me highly secret units operate inside Afghanistan and perhaps
elsewhere, but not in Iran. Any such information could be gathered
more easily inside Iran by Kurdish rebels who often cooperate with
U.S. intelligence.
That set the stage for Vice President Dick Cheney's
unexpected appearance Inauguration Day on the nationally syndicated
''Imus in the Morning'' radio talk show, known for ribald and
outrageous material and often engaged in Bush-bashing and
Cheney-bashing. Don Imus asked Cheney to comment on the Hersh
article's suggestion ''that you all are up to something in Iran.''
Cheney did not specifically address Hersh's contentions but asserted
that ''Iran is right at the top of the list'' among the world's
''potential trouble spots.''
''Why don't we make Israel do it?'' asked Imus.
Instead of laughing that off, Cheney replied that ''one of the
concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being
asked.'' He said ''the Israelis might well decide to act first and
let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic
mess afterwards.''
Had Cheney used a more respectable venue for
speculation, it would have received more attention. Checking with
sources at State and Defense, I was surprised that many were not
aware of exactly what the vice president said. They told me there
was no intelligence to predict an Israeli strike. One official who
is on top of the details said Iranian nuclear development is so
dispersed around the country that the threat could not possibly be
eliminated by a single bombing stroke, as Israel did on June 7,
1981, when its bombers took out Iraq's only nuclear reactor.
Apparently, Cheney next thought better of his
Israeli prediction and said of the Iranian problem that it would be
best ''if we could deal with it diplomatically.'' That is precisely
what Powell preached the last four years and what is dictated by
military realities. The vision of spreading democracy gives way to
the less dramatic goal of negotiating with Iran over nuclear arms.
