Peter Mackler / Agence France Presse – 2006-05-02 23:50:33
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
WASHINGTON (May 1, 2006) — As Washington presses its drive to thwart Iran’s suspected efforts to build a nuclear bomb, it is turning increasingly to the same diplomatic rhetoric used in the run-up to the Iraq war. However, nobody here is talking seriously about a full-scale invasion of Iran like the 2003 move to oust Saddam Hussein for allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
When asked about the possibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a stock answer: “Iran is not Iraq. I know that’s what’s on people’s minds. The circumstances are different.”
Nevertheless, US officials appear in much the same position as they were in 2002.
With the latest nuclear crisis coming to a head after Iran blew off a UN Security Council injunction to halt uranium enrichment, the U.S is again showing signs of frustration with the world body.
Nearly four years after President George W. Bush warned the UN it risked becoming “irrelevant” unless it dealt with Saddam, his administration is billing the showdown with Iran as a new test of UN mettle.
“Iran is openly challenging the United Nations,” deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday. “That challenge should have consequences in order to sustain and to reinforce the credibility of the UN as an institution.”
Faced with stubborn resistance from veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China to punitive measures against Iran, Washington is working on an alternative to UN action as it did for Iraq.
Back then it was a “coalition of the willing” rising up against Saddam; now it’s a group of “like-minded nations” determined to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check.
The US is encouraging countries to consider their own sanctions against Tehran, such as a cutoff of trade, an embargo on sales of sensitive material, or asset freezes and travel restrictions on Iranian leaders.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
American Rhetoric against Iran Reminiscent of Run-up to Iraq War
Peter Mackler / Agence France Presse
WASHINGTON (May 01, 2006) — As Washington presses its drive to thwart Iran’s suspected efforts to build a nuclear bomb, it is turning increasingly to the same diplomatic rhetoric used in the run-up to the Iraq war. However, nobody here is talking seriously about a full-scale invasion of Iran like the 2003 move to oust Saddam Hussein for allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
When asked about the possibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a stock answer: “Iran is not Iraq. I know that’s what’s on people’s minds. The circumstances are different.”
Nevertheless, US officials appear in much the same position as they were in 2002.
With the latest nuclear crisis coming to a head after Iran blew off a UN Security Council injunction to halt uranium enrichment, the U.S is again showing signs of frustration with the world body.
Nearly four years after President George W. Bush warned the UN it risked becoming “irrelevant” unless it dealt with Saddam, his administration is billing the showdown with Iran as a new test of UN mettle.
“Iran is openly challenging the United Nations,” deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday. “That challenge should have consequences in order to sustain and to reinforce the credibility of the UN as an institution.”
Faced with stubborn resistance from veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China to punitive measures against Iran, Washington is working on an alternative to UN action as it did for Iraq.
Back then it was a “coalition of the willing” rising up against Saddam; now it’s a group of “like-minded nations” determined to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check.
The US is encouraging countries to consider their own sanctions against Tehran, such as a cutoff of trade, an embargo on sales of sensitive material, or asset freezes and travel restrictions on Iranian leaders.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
