The debate within the Bush Administration over confronting Iran has
generated an even deeper divide than occurred during prewar discussions on
Iraq, Administration officials say.
The dispute over policy broadly breaks down into two disparate goals:
behaviour change versus regime change. The split was more intense this
time "for the simple reason that everyone basically agreed on the need for
regime change in Iraq", said a well-placed US official.
"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 hardline 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, US officials say.
Pressed on whether regime change was a goal, an 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 centre on the country's nuclear
program, its ties to extremist groups and its role in postwar Iraq. Iran
has denied nuclear weapons ambitions.
Although none of the serious players is advocating an imminent new war,
the Administration is under growing pressure from neoconservatives to
launch more aggressive action to undermine or confront the regime.
Some neoconservatives, such as former CIA analyst Reuel Gerecht, have
even dangled the idea of pre-emptive military strikes on Iran's nuclear
facilities if Tehran does not come clean on its suspected programs.
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," one miffed State Department official said. "So take the
anonymous debate as no more than that until we announce otherwise."
The White House is holding off on discussions with Iran until the
Administration sees how Tehran responds to demands on turning over
al-Qaeda operatives, including about half a dozen suspected senior
officials. The US believes that new operations chief Saif al Adel and Saad
bin Laden, a son of al-Qaeda's founder, are both in Iran.
In a reversal, Iran left open the possibility on Thursday that it may
have top al-Qaeda operatives in custody. The comments by a Foreign
Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, contradicted his statement on
Monday, when he was quoted as saying al-Qaeda members detained in Iran
"are not senior members of the group".
Instead, he said, Iran was unsure of their identities.
On Thursday, President George Bush said he had no "preoccupation" with
Iran, and a government official said consideration of new get-tough
measures against Tehran had been put off indefinitely amid divisions in
the Administration.
Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Associated Press
