There have been rumors circulating (or for some hawks, wishful thinking) that the Bush administration has been considering a unilateral attack on Iran. The move would be aimed at halting the Iranian government's nuclear enrichment program, which the US government believes will lead to the development of not just nuclear energy (as the Iranians claim) but nuclear weapons.
The recent resignation of U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon, caused a stir in the administration that was revealing of the administration's mindset on the issue.
The Washington Post reports: “The abrupt resignation of the Pentagon's top Middle East commander has silenced one of the Bush administration's fiercest opponents of a unilateral military strike against Iran, yet top administration officials themselves do not see real prospects for military action before the end of President Bush's term, current and former U.S. officials say.
According to the Post Fallon “had irked the White House in recent months by publicly opposing possible military action against Iran. But support for a military strike within the administration has eroded steadily in recent months, and Fallon's departure will do little to change that, the officials said.”
Further taming the rumors of a US attack on Iran is William Akin op-ed countering the US News and World Report article (linked to above).
Support for an attack against Iran is also eroding among the global public. The BBC World Service recently released a 31-country poll that showed: “Across all 31 countries surveyed in the latest poll (the 21 tracking countries plus an additional 10 countries polled for the first time), most respondents oppose the use of economic sanctions or military strikes. Compared to results from a June 2006 BBC World Service Poll, support for economic sanctions or military strikes has declined significantly, including in countries that were previously among the highest supporters of tough action.”
Meanwhile, in the absence of official diplomatic relations between the two nations, some members of the American NGO community are engaging the Iranians in face to face diplomacy (that is not to say, though, that the State Department isn't working tirelessly to foster a more positive relationship with Iran). Jonathan Granoff, President of the Pennsylvania-based Global Security Institute (GSI) tells of a recent trip he took to Tehran at the invitation of Iranian Foreign Ministry. Last week Granoff spoke at the conference held by the Institute for Political and International Studies of the Foreign Ministry of Iran titled the “International Conference on Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program and Activities: Modality of Cooperation with the IAEA.”
According to Granoff he was the only American at the meeting: “I accepted an invitation to speak, although there were no other presenters from any Western country at the morning plenary session. In fact, there were no other Americans speaking at the conference, although there was a small US interfaith delegation in attendance.”
About delivering his speech he commented: “Whether any of these points resonated with the Iranian decision makers at the conference, only time will tell. However, I can comfortably report that in every instance I was treated with respect and no effort was spared to ensure my travels were comfortable. Moreover, I had the opportunity to spend some free time in Tehran and was surprised to find such an active, engaging population with whom I did not encounter any negative responses to being an American. In fact, it seemed everyone wanted to participate in conversation and many people spoke English I wish Americans had as much understanding and appreciation of Iranians as they seem to have of us.”
So this past week, although the Bush administration lost an opponent of war in Iran, support for a US attack on Iran waned in the White House and in the eyes of the global public, and Iran gained a new American friend. All in all I’d call it a good week for US-Iranian relations.
