U.S. Split Over How Hard to Push Against Iran

The debate within the Bush administration over confronting Iran has generated an even deeper divide than occurred during prewar discussions on Iraq, according to administration officials.

The dispute over policy broadly breaks down into two disparate goals: behavior change versus regime change.

The split is more intense this time “for the simple reason that everyone basically agreed on the need for regime change in Iraq,” said a well-placed U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The differences were over how and when it was achieved and what role the international community played.

“On Iran, the debate is much more fundamental. It’s whether there should be regime change at all.”

The most outspoken advocates of ousting Iran’s ruling clerics are the same neoconservatives in the Pentagon, Congress and Washington think tanks who first advocated ending the quarter-century rule of Saddam Hussein. As on Iraq, the neoconservative lobby is facing serious opposition from the State Department, the CIA and, for now, the National Security Council.

The hawks on Iran want to exploit what they believe is a sharp and growing divide between the hard-line religious leaders and the majority of Iran’s 65 million people and would like to find a way to support, overtly or covertly, the burgeoning anti-theocracy movement among Iran’s young people and women, U.S. officials say.

Pressed on whether regime change was a goal, a senior administration official who backs tougher action said in an interview this week: “You bet.... We want a regime that reflects the will of the Iranian people” rather than the “thuggish mullahs” who have veto power over virtually all government decisions.

The administration’s disputes with Iran center on the country’s nuclear program, its ties to extremist groups and its role in postwar Iraq.

Although none of the serious players is advocating an imminent war, the administration is under growing pressure from neoconservatives to launch more aggressive action to undermine or confront the regime.

Their thinking is reflected by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who advocates a congressional mandate for regime change in Iran, much as Congress acted in the late 1990s to press for a new government in Iraq.

“We’ll never have true stability in the region as long as the Iranian regime remains in power,” he said at a recent conference of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “We’re riding a horse and we’re in the middle of the stream. We’ve got to press on to the other side.”

Some neoconservatives, such as former CIA analyst Reuel Gerecht, have even dangled the idea of preemptive military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran does not come clean on its suspected programs.

Some also are calling for covert intelligence operations, including actions that exploit widespread discontent among Iran’s younger generation. “The more we can mobilize the Iranian population with us on these issues, the more chance we have of succeeding,” said another leading administration hawk who refused to be identified.

But others in the administration are taking a softer line.

“Are there people who would like to change the regime? Sure. But policy hasn’t changed. So take the anonymous debate as no more than that until we announce otherwise,” one miffed State Department official said.

Another senior administration official said: “We’re pursuing the policy we’ve had and trying to get Iranian cooperation, particularly on Al Qaeda. At moments the Iranians have cooperated more, and at moments they’ve cooperated less. No one is threatening to invade or take any dramatic new measures.”

With the immediate focus on the Middle East peace process and postwar Iraq, the White House is holding off on discussions until the administration sees how Tehran responds to demands made public during the past two weeks for turning over Al Qaeda operatives, including about half a dozen suspected senior officials. The United States believes that new operations chief Saif Adel and Saad bin Laden, a son of Al Qaeda’s founder, are both in Iran.

“Let’s first see what Iran decides to do,” the State Department official said. “This is a window of opportunity, an opportunity to act.”

President Bush said Thursday that he expects the Tehran regime to detain all Al Qaeda operatives in Iran and hand them over to their countries of origin. “If there are Al Qaeda in Iran and they plot against the United States ... obviously we’re going to be displeased with that,” he said in an interview with Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on the eve of his departure for Europe and the Middle East.

“My hope, of course, is that the Iranians respond,” Bush said. “And they’ve heard our message loud and clear, and I suspect they will.”

The discussion that had been tentatively scheduled to take place this week has been put off until Bush returns from his six-nation tour. But the administration is “on the cusp” of deciding whether it should shift policy from pressuring Iran to a more aggressive combination of actions, the well-placed official said.

Iran will, however, be a major theme during Bush’s tour, particularly in Russia and at the G-8 summit of industrialized nations.

He will press U.S. allies to confront the Islamic Republic particularly on two issues, U.S. officials say.

On Iran’s nuclear program, Bush will call on the Russians and Europeans to urge Tehran to sign an international agreement that gives the International Atomic Energy Agency the right to have surprise inspections.

“We believe that the international community must make clear to Iran that a failure to come clean [on its nuclear program] or stop movement toward acquiring fissile material will cost it increasing economic and political isolation,” said the State Department official. “Having this as a right rather than a privilege to go anywhere, any time is important” in keeping track of Iran’s suspected secret program.

On Al Qaeda, the president’s message to allies with diplomatic relations with Iran is that “you need to turn the screws tight. You have influence. You have business interests. Let them know it’s no longer business as usual. If you’re harboring Al Qaeda, all bets are off,” another senior administration official said.

Bush is already gaining some support. During his visit to Moscow earlier this month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Russia -- which is constructing a new reactor in Iran -- is now concerned about Tehran’s nuclear program.

Britain and other European allies in the Iraq war are also increasingly sympathetic to pressuring Iran. “The issue for many of us is what to do next -- whether to try to embarrass them, turn the screws or consider tougher action,” said a senior European envoy who declined to be identified.

“We want them to get the message that the window of opportunity is closing,” he added. “There won’t be another one.”