Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions

Deep divisions within the Bush administration are hampering U.S. efforts to defuse the growing nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran, a cross-section of Middle East specialists say.

The differences -- between those advocating a tough, confrontational approach and those convinced that engagement on a variety of issues is the best way to stop Tehran’s quest for a nuclear weapon -- are so strong that nearly three years after President Bush declared Iran part of an “axis of evil” threatening the free world, his administration still has no widely accepted approach to the problem.

The search for common ground has been complicated by a variety of factors, including the sharply opposing views among America’s closest allies and the stakes involved. Arms control specialists and regional analysts argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could endanger Israel’s existence, touch off a regional arms race in an already unstable Middle East and -- because of Iran’s medium- and long-range missile technology acquired from North Korea -- very quickly pose direct threats to Europe and the United States.

“It’s a potential nightmare,” said Joseph Cirincione, who specializes in nonproliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He argued that the problem could be resolved only by engaging Iran across a broad front of issues. “Narrow contact on the nuclear issue on its own won’t work,” he said.

In general, the Pentagon, along with Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton, are said to favor a tough approach. Many officials at the State Department have argued for engagement.

Against this backdrop, the United States heads into a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors in Vienna this week hoping to persuade key European allies to refer Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons to the U.N. Security Council for possible action, such as economic sanctions or other punitive measures.

“The challenge now is to get friends and allies to take the steps they need to take,” said an administration official working on the issue.

That won’t be easy.

After meetings with the U.S. in Geneva, the governments of Britain, France and Germany reportedly agreed to a November deadline for Iran to convince the international community that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. But the Europeans stopped short of demanding that the case be referred automatically to the Security Council if Iran fails to meet the deadline.

European nations, many of which enjoy strong business ties with Iran, argue that such a step could backfire, causing Tehran to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would in effect end international inspection of Iran’s nuclear program.

After the rupture of confidence in transatlantic ties that has surrounded the war in Iraq, Europeans are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration’s intentions toward Iran. The divisions within the administration have added to this wariness, “if only because these countries believe the U.S. may not actually want what it says it wants,” said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research.

“This is an administration that’s bent on polishing its macho image seven weeks before an election, “ Heisbourg said.

European officials have said they want to allow more time for diplomatic efforts to produce a compromise that enables Iran to operate a peaceful nuclear energy program, yet relinquish control over fuel that could be used to make weapons.

The arms control community was stunned this month when the IAEA revealed in a report that Iran planned to convert 37 tons of milled uranium, known as yellowcake, into a compound that can be used in a peaceful nuclear power program but also can be used to make weapons-grade enriched uranium.

The amount would be enough for three to five nuclear weapons, said a U.S. official dealing with the issue.

“I recognize engagement isn’t getting us very far, but I also recognize that the alternative of going to the Security Council means working on a military strategy,” Heisbourg said.

Although debate goes on about how best to deal with Tehran, there is no disagreement, either within the administration or among America’s allies, that Iran’s effort to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped.

White House officials insist that the administration is united on the immediate need to work with European allies to head off Iran’s nuclear weapons production through diplomacy. The absence of an agreed overall strategy on Iran means little when dealing with the day-to-day realities of the issue, they say.

“It’s typical of those in Washington who think a piece of paper or another meeting is the answer to the problem,” National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. “We certainly have a policy. We’re willing to engage Iran on issues of mutual concern in the appropriate manner, if the president decides.”

Others express frustration at what they describe as a lack of depth in U.S. policy.

Two experts outside the administration -- one from either side of the ideological divide, neither of whom wanted to be named -- said the lack of what one of them called a “coherent plan” had undercut America’s ability to shape events on Iran.

“There’s no effective policy on the nuclear issue, so there’s no coordination with the major powers,” said one specialist, who favored engagement. “It’s not good at all.”

The other said the Bush policy sometimes seemed to go no further than rhetoric.

“There are those who insist we keep trying a diplomatic approach, others believe that hasn’t worked, so you have the president standing up there and saying a nuclear Iran is intolerable, but not being exactly specific about how to go about preventing that from happening,” this specialist said.

Some blame national security advisor Condoleezza Rice for failing to shape a comprehensive policy, whereas others think those favoring engagement have blocked efforts to produce such a policy in the belief their ideas would not survive.

Some who have worked within the administration on the Iran issue say the absence of an agreed strategy is distracting.

“When you don’t have a policy, this is where the debate is; it’s a lightning rod,” said Michael Rubin, who dealt with Iran at the Pentagon’s main policy unit before moving to the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington last spring.

A mid-level Pentagon analyst on Iran from the same unit, Larry Franklin, is the subject of an FBI inquiry to determine whether he passed to Israel a classified document relating to the administration’s internal policy struggle on Iran.

The Pentagon office in question is run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, a well-known and controversial hard-liner on Iran. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, has been implicated in the investigation -- both factors that have done little to calm the debate.

While Europeans work to blunt what they consider overly aggressive American tactics, other powerful foreign forces are pulling the administration in the opposite direction, urging an even harder line against Tehran.

Top military officials in Israel have hinted at airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, as voices from across the Israeli political spectrum point to the danger and press Washington for a stronger response.

“Israel is in existential danger if they acquire nuclear weapons, as they already have missiles with the capacity to deliver them,” said former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, now a lawmaker in the opposition Labor Party. “Unfortunately, so far, the achievements of U.S. policy in this regard are minimal.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Jerusalem Post in an interview last week that “actions [against Iran] are being taken, but I don’t think the pressure is enough.”

In a sign of the depth of Israel’s concern, Sharon this year appointed Meir Dagan, the chief of the intelligence agency Mossad, as the point man on the country’s efforts to deny Iran atomic weapons.

Pressure on the Bush administration to support Israel’s position is magnified by AIPAC, which has lobbied for strong positions against Iran. The group’s website lists the issue at the top of its current agenda.

The accounts of some Iranian dissidents paint a chilling picture of the intensity of Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the head of a Washington consulting firm who was part of a group that disclosed Iran’s nuclear weapons development sites two years ago, contended that international pressure aimed at slowing Iran’s nuclear program had had the opposite effect.

He said in an interview that his informants inside the country say Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reacted to IAEA pressure in June for greater openness by ordering scientists to accelerate the weapons development program.

Jafarzadeh described work at the country’s three main nuclear sites -- Natanz, Arak and Esfahan -- as so active that staff were working overtime to keep the program going.

Despite such accounts, some respected American voices in foreign affairs caution that the U.S. must resist what one called “strong-arm tactics” against Iran.

“This would not just unite the fundamentalist mullahs and the democratic opposition [in Iran] against the U.S., but would give Iran the chance to leverage Shia populations in Iraq and Afghanistan against us,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Carter’s national security advisor. “It would be disastrous for the United States.”

Times staff writers Laura King in Jerusalem and Douglas Frantz in Istanbul, Turkey, contributed to this report.