U.S. Gives Mixed Signals on Its Response to Iran

The Bush administration said Wednesday that Iran’s response to international efforts to restrain its nuclear program fell short of a U.N. Security Council demand that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities by Aug. 31. But American officials declined to say whether that meant they would push for economic sanctions against Iran at the United Nations next week.

The administration’s refusal to immediately call for sanctions marked a change in tone from signals sent by American officials before Iran issued a lengthy counteroffer Tuesday. Last week, senior U.S. diplomats had warned that anything short of a halt in Iran’s enrichment program would lead to a quick American-led push for targeted sanctions at the United Nations.

The U.S. stance appeared even more muted than that taken Wednesday by France, whose foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, told reporters in Paris that any return to the negotiating table would depend on Iran suspending its enrichment program. The Security Council is scheduled to meet next Thursday to officially consider Iran’s response and decide whether the world body should move toward sanctions.

The Bush administration’s reaction came in an announcement by the State Department, where a spokesman called the Iranian response “a serious offer” that warranted review. White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said afterward that although Iran did not meet the key requirements on enrichment and reprocessing, the U.S. was continuing to discuss the document with the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, to decide whether to push for sanctions.

“I think that we need some time to review it and to discuss what the next steps are,” Perino said. “All six of them are meeting, and we’ll see what comes next.”

Even as the administration sought to portray itself as soberly considering the Iranian response, the House Intelligence Committee issued a report Wednesday emphasizing the potential threat posed by Iran and reiterating U.S. intelligence estimates that Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon sometime in the next decade.

The report raised questions as to whether Iran would live up to any international agreement to suspend its nuclear program, and noted that the U.S. intelligence community might lack the resources and information to verify Tehran’s behavior.

“American intelligence agencies do not know nearly enough about Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” the bipartisan report states.

“Based on what is known about Iranian behavior and Iranian deception efforts, the U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapons capability.”

It remained unclear whether the Bush administration’s subdued reaction to the Iranian document was a signal of a genuine willingness to reengage with Tehran on the nuclear issue or an attempt to demonstrate publicly that it was not dismissing the Iranian proposal out of hand.

European allies have been pushing the U.S. to refrain from quick public pronouncements, noting that Western powers castigated the Iranian government last year when it immediately rejected a European Union offer of political and economic cooperation in return for a cessation of its enrichment program.

“We criticized Iran for the way they dismissed the offer we made in 2005 without even looking at it,” a European diplomat said. “It would behoove us to take some time and look at this.”

President Bush discussed the Iranian response with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a morning telephone call during which Annan said he was planning to travel to the Middle East at the end of the week. Although the trip will include a stop in Tehran, U.N. officials said his discussions would focus on the U.N.-brokered cease-fire in Lebanon.

Bush also discussed Iran’s offer, which included a call for new, “serious negotiations,” with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Aside from Douste-Blazy’s remarks, the reaction from most allied capitals showed a measure of restraint similar to that from Washington -- a sign that world powers wanted to avoid displaying any differences so quickly on the heels of an acrimonious debate over the cease-fire in Lebanon.

Furthermore, officials were not under pressure to respond quickly, given that the scheduled Security Council meeting on Iran’s nuclear program was still more than a week away.

“Our deadline is the 31st of August, I’m not sure we see any reason to respond on Iran’s timetable,” said another European diplomat who, like other envoys cited in this report, spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivity.

Having pushed the international community for action against Tehran, however, the administration would be unlikely to back down from its promises to pursue sanctions next week if Iran did not agree to suspend enrichment.

Both Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, the administration’s point man on Iran, and John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., have said recently that the administration plans to press quickly for sanctions in the event there is no Iranian agreement to the allied offer.

However, the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries said Wednesday that they preferred a negotiated solution, signaling that it may be hard to persuade the two countries to vote for any penalty against Iran, at least for now.

Both nations urged the United States and the Western Europeans, who have been the strongest advocates of enacting penalties quickly if Iran fails to meet the Security Council demands, to focus on Tehran’s proposals and avoid strident criticism.

“It is essential to understand the nuances and to find constructive elements, if any exist, and to decide whether it is possible to go on working with Tehran on the basis of the well-known proposals of the six states,” said Mikhail Kamynin, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry diplomat said, “Hopefully, the other parties will remain patient and calm,” referring to the Europeans and the United States.

Details of the Iranian response remained closely held by U.S. and European diplomats, but the requirement to suspend enrichment was seen on both sides of the Atlantic as the central component of an offer made in June by Germany and the permanent Security Council members. One of the diplomats described the Iranian response as “opaque” and “circular.”

Times staff writers Alissa J. Rubin in Vienna and David Holley in Moscow contributed to this report.