http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na- cheney21jan21,0,2703424.story?coll=la-home-headlines THE INAUGURATION U.S. Adds Israel to the Iran Equation The Jewish state 'might well decide to act first' to foil Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Cheney says. By Paul Richter Times Staff Writer January 21, 2005 WASHINGTON � In bluntly threatening terms on Inauguration Day, Vice President Dick Cheney removed any doubt that in its second term the Bush administration intended to directly confront the theocracy in Tehran. Cheney, who often has delivered the Bush team's toughest warnings to foreign capitals, said Iran was "right at the top" of the administration's list of world trouble spots, and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to destroy Iran's nuclear program. The Israelis would let the rest of the world "worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward," he added in a radio interview with Don Imus that was also broadcast on MSNBC. The tough talk was part of the administration's attempt to halt what Iran contends is a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program but which Washington believes is a clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons. Facing weak diplomatic and military options, the administration has issued increasingly stern warnings in hopes that threats of sanctions and international isolation will convince Iran to shun nuclear weapons. President Bush and other top administration officials also have spoken in menacing terms about Iran in recent days. But Cheney's words marked the first time that a senior official has amplified the threat by suggesting that the United States could be unable to prevent military attack by its close allies in Jerusalem, analysts and diplomats said. The startling reference to an Israeli attack was "the kind of strong language that will get their attention in Tehran," said one allied diplomat in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There's a rhetorical escalation here: They've ratcheted up the threat level by bringing Israel in," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department official during the Clinton administration. "They're using the fact of the inauguration, and the uncertainty people have about where they're going in the next term, to say, 'Look, we're not going to let up on Iran.' " Despite Iranian denials, Cheney said the United States believed Tehran had a "fairly robust, new nuclear program." Germany, France and Britain are trying to negotiate with Iran on the issue, an approach U.S. officials say they support but refuse to join as they express doubts over its prospects. Cheney said the American emphasis was on diplomacy and supporting the European efforts. But he added, "At some point, if the Iranians don't live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the United Nations Security Council and seek the imposition of international sanctions." U.S. officials cited Iraq's failure to live up to U.N. resolutions on its weapons programs as a reason for launching war in that country. Despite the administration's insistence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, none have been found. Reports have swirled in recent weeks that U.S. officials have contemplated ways of taking military action against Iran, but Cheney raised the stakes by suggesting that Israel might act first. Cheney addressed the issue when asked whether the U.S. could ask Israel to lead military action against Iran. "One of the concerns that people have is that Israel might do it without being asked," Cheney said. "If in fact the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability � given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel � the Israelis might well decide to act first." Israeli analysts have said they believe Iran could develop a bomb in two to three years; U.S. intelligence has predicted it could take slightly longer. Israeli officials have said they might turn to military strikes as a last resort. But military strikes would have no value if Iran developed the ability to enrich uranium, which Israel believes is possible in within a year, the officials said. At that point, the Iranians would be able to disperse their equipment sufficiently to put it beyond the reach of any attacker. Cheney's comments come at a time when there has been increasing public discussion of the possibility of military strikes, and heated public exchanges from officials in Washington and Tehran on the nuclear program. On Monday, Bush said in an interview that he could not rule out the use of military force if Tehran could not be persuaded to abandon its efforts. On Tuesday, during her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice condemned Iran for its support of terrorism and its hostility toward Israel. She included Iran among six "outposts of tyranny" that would be targeted by the State Department. Iran was also one of the three nations � along with Iraq and North Korea � that Bush described as an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of Union address. This week, a report in the New Yorker magazine said U.S. commandos had been operating inside Iran to find potential targets for attack. The Pentagon said the report was "riddled with errors," but did not directly deny a commando presence there. In response, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's influential former president, said the country would "not be intimidated by foreign enemies' threats and sanctions." Israel has expressed anxiety over Iran's stance. "Iran poses a clear threat to international peace and security," said an Israeli diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, while actively developing weapons of mass destruction and nuclear programs. The world should unite and pressure Iran from these destructive activities." Cheney was a leading administration proponent of the war against Iraq, and remained adamant during Thursday's MSNBC interview that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the outside world because of weapons of mass destruction, despite repeated findings that Iraq's production capabilities had been eliminated and that there were no stockpiles of weapons. Intelligence reports cited by the administration to support its view that there were weapons later proved to be wrong. "But he had a lot of other things," Cheney said, citing a CIA inspection report. "He had the technology, he had the people who'd done it before�. He kept open labs and the intelligence service that were still doing ongoing research and so forth. And he clearly had the intentions, once sanctions were lifted, that he would go back � be back in business again." Cheney also asserted that, in 1991, Iraq was less than a year away from the ability to produce a nuclear bomb. He reiterated the widely contested view that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The commission created to study the Sept. 11 attacks concluded that there was no "collaborative, operational relationship" between Iraq and the terrorist group. And the CIA report cited by Cheney said that Iraq in 1991 was "within a few years" of producing a nuclear weapon, but that the Persian Gulf War and U.N. sanctions ended the program. By 2003, when the U.S. went to war against Iraq, the CIA concluded that though Hussein hoped to one day resume his weapons program, he lacked a written strategy, staff or infrastructure to do so. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. Article licensing and reprint options ------------------------ Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/MknplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VTJP/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
