Preemption: war with Iran next?

"We have said repeatedly that we think they should not have a nuclear bomb. And we also made it abundantly clear we want to solve the problem diplomatically. But the president has always emphasised no options have been taken off the table."

This was September 2006. It may have been that Cheney was merely in a polite mood. But White House Press Secretary Snow said the same thing in May, and even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, arguably one of the "architects of illusion" that Layne was talking about, stated:

"Finally there have been some questions raised about Iran and speculation about US policy. Let me be clear. The department's policy is the president's policy. President Bush and America's allies are on a diplomatic track. The president addressed this matter yesterday very forcefully, and I would have nothing to add."

He was merely repeating a point that years before, in 2002 already, had been made by then Secretary of State Colin Powell when he said that there were no plans to begin a conflict with Iran. As late as December 2006, Rumsfeld's successor Robert M. Gates being heard before the Senate Armed Services Committee reaffirmed again:

"Senator Byrd, I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort; that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a conflict - a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened."

The United States are maintaining a steady course with regard to Iran so it seems. Diplomacy first, army last. If there is naval buildup in the Gulf, it should be read as classic deterrence in the framework of a regular text-book containment policy. Kenneth Katzman, in a report for Congress entitled Iran: US Concerns and Policy Responses, summarises:

"The Bush Administration has continued the thrust of Clinton Administration efforts to try to limit Iran's strategic capabilities through international diplomacy and sanctions, although some Bush Administration officials have sought to place regime change at the center of the US Iran policy. During 2006, the pressing US interest in curbing Iran's nuclear program has led to a de-emphasis of regime change in favor of international diplomacy and a revival of the option of direct engagement with Iran. As of early 2007, however, the Administration approach has shifted somewhat toward strategic and military containment."

With temperatures in the region increasing "somewhat", Congress has moved to introduce legislation that will require the president to obtain congressional authorisation for use of force against force.

Alongside this, another proposal would prohibit the use of any US funds for strikes against Iran.

At the same time, in September 2006, Congress voted into law the so-called Iran Freedom Support Act that is designed to uphold various sanctions against the country, its material backers and investors, while promoting democracy through the assistance of opposition groups and individuals both domestic and foreign.

Furthermore, the State Department has appropriated funds - with full congressional support - to finance educational grants to Iranian organisations, pay for broadcasting, support the development of political parties, promote civil society, and so on.

On top of that, state has widely expanded its network of Iran-diplomats, both in Washington where it erected a dedicated Office of Iranian Affairs, and worldwide, adding Farsi-speaking staff to its branches in London, Dubai, Baku, Istanbul and Askhabad.