mebb.de
Iran-Krise

Bevor Sie Chips und Bier kaufen, um sich den Krieg gegen den Iran am 6. April vor dem Fernseher anzuschauen, vielleicht ein Hinweis auf einen Artikel von Dan Murphy im heutigen CSM.

[W]ar with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran’s move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.

Als Beleg zitiert er zum einen M. J. Rosenberg vom Israel Policy Forum, das einer Militäraktion schon in der Vergangenheit ablehnend gegenüber stand.

“I think the discussion has really shifted,” says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, … “The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed,” says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that tough military action could be possible this year, he says. “Now, hardly anyone does.”

Von den starken Tönen meint Rosenberg, die immer noch in Washington zu hören sind, solle man sich nicht täuschen lassen.

Mr. Rosenberg says continued tough talk … largely serve two functions: To hopefully soften up Iran in ongoing diplomatic negotiations over inspections of its nuclear facilities; and as a sop to hard-line groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which says it favors attacking Iran if diplomacy doesn’t yield results soon.

Des weiteren führt Murphy Patrick Clawson vom Washington Institute for Near East Policy an:

“If Bush attacked Iran tomorrow, the great majority of Americans would think he was nuts,'’ Patrick Clawson, deputy director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last week at a conference in Washington on America’s options with Iran.

Mr. Clawson, a vigorous proponent of invading Iraq, sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as an intractable enemy of the US, and has repeatedly urged that the US focus on regime change there by supporting exiled dissidents and democratic opponents inside the country.

But he has recently written that military action against Iran “is clearly undesirable” and thinks war is out of the question, unless it is triggered by a “much more aggressive” stance from Iran, for instance a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the testing of a nuclear weapon.

Dritter Kronzeuge: Ken Pollack, einst einflussreicher Befürworter des Krieges gegen den Irak.

He sees military action as an absolute last resort, and worries that Iran could easily tie up US forces in Iraq – where the US alleges many of the Shiite militias closely cooperate with Tehran. “We need to think about Iraq before we go off on some half-cocked military action against Iran,'’ Mr. Pollack says.

Vor drei Tagen hatte Trudy Rubin im Philadelphia Inquirer schon einen ähnlichen Stimmungsumschwung bei den Falken in der US Politik gemeldet.

Sie zitiert zwei weitere ehemalige Befürworter von militärischen Aktionen gegen Teheran:

Danielle Pletka, vice president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said: “Military options [toward Iran] are not satisfactory. They won’t end the [nuclear] program and they will have consequences. The regime will lash out at us.”

Michael Eisenstadt, the director for military and security studies at the conservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was equally cautious. “I thought WMD was a slam dunk before the Iraq war,” he said, “but I don’t assume anything anymore after Saddam Hussein.” He added that the United States should not give up on the diplomatic option with Iran.

Was hat zu dem Stimmungsumschwung geführt?

David Ochmanek, a senior defense analyst for Rand (known for its tough strategic reports), laid out the negatives: a U.S. attack on Iranian sites, far from weakening the regime, would cause it to close ranks (and strengthen the hand of radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who faces criticism at home for economic and diplomatic blunders). Iran would ratchet up pressure on U.S. troops in Iraq (which is minimal now, despite administration rhetoric). Tehran might attack oil and gas ships in the Gulf. A U.S. attack also would ensure that Iran’s leaders would redouble their efforts to get a bomb - and would boost jihadi movements worldwide.

Ist damit die militärische Option einstweilen vom Tisch? Trudy Rubin:

Can we then assume that the chances of war with Iran are zilch? Perhaps. But if tensions remain high, incidents between Iranians and coalition forces could escalate inside Iraq or in the Gulf. A good example is the Iranian seizure last week of 15 British navy personnel in disputed gulf waters. And if things worsen in Iraq, might the White House decide to divert attention to Iran? Probably not, but . . .