WRAPUP 1-US, UK, France ratchet up pressure on Iran

Related Topics

Thu Nov 3, 2011 4:33pm EDT

* US, EU and allies believe Iran wants atomic weapons

* IAEA report to detail military side of Iran atomic work

* US, UK keep all options on the table with Iran

By Louis Charbonneau

Nov 3 (Reuters) - The United States, Britain and France turned up the pressure on Tehran on Thursday ahead of next week's release of a keenly awaited U.N. report that may offer new details about the military side of Iran's nuclear program.

Washington and its European allies suspect that Iran is developing the capability to produce atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Iran denies wanting atom bombs and insists its program is for generating electricity.

The report by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to unveil detailed intelligence pointing to military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, while stopping short of saying explicitly that Tehran is trying to build such weapons.

"One (issue) in particular that I want to mention is the continuing threat posed by Iran's nuclear program," U.S. President Barack Obama told reporters ahead of a G20 heads of state summit in the French resort of Cannes.

"The IAEA is scheduled to release a report on Iran's nuclear program next week and (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy and I agree on the need to maintain the unprecedented pressure on Iran to meet its obligations," Obama said.

The United States, European Union and their allies around the world have imposed economic sanctions on Tehran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program, which Western powers believe is at the heart of an Iran atom bomb program.

The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at the possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, eliciting threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.

The U.N. Security Council, with the backing of Iran's traditional sympathizers Russia and China, has imposed four rounds of increasingly tough sanctions on Tehran since 2006.

Responding to a newspaper report that Britain was stepping up military contingency plans amid mounting concerns about Iran, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office said on Wednesday that London was keeping all options open -- including the possibility of military action.

"We want a negotiated solution, but all options should be kept on the table," a Foreign Office spokesperson said.

U.S. WILLING TO USE "EVERY MEANS"

The report in the Guardian, without citing a source, said Britain's Defense Ministry believed the United States may accelerate plans for missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities and cited British officials as saying it would seek and receive military help from Britain for any mission.

U.N. diplomats in New York and government officials elsewhere called the Guardian report exaggerated. They said Israel would be more likely to use military force against Iranian nuclear facilities than the United States, which is bogged down in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The pressure on Iran comes weeks after the United States accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, an allegation Tehran denied.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reiterated that the Obama administration was not closing the door on any options in dealing with Tehran's nuclear program.

"We have said many times in the last weeks and months that we do not seek a military confrontation with Iran," she said.

"That said, we are going to use every means at our disposal to continue to try to increase the international pressure on Iran to meet its IAEA obligations and to come clean on its nuclear program," Nuland told reporters in Washington.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told reporters in the Libyan city of Benghazi that Washington should avoid taking drastic steps against Tehran.

"We hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran," Salehi said.

Diplomats in New York reiterated the West's commitment to a two-track strategy of negotiations aimed at resolving Iran's nearly decade-long nuclear standoff with the West and the threat of further sanctions should it refuse to cooperate.

Years of fitful negotiations with Tehran have gone nowhere. Depending on what the new IAEA report on Iran reveals, Western diplomats say they might have no choice but to try to expand the U.N. sanctions regime against Tehran.

WOUNDED BEAR

There has been a surge of speculation in Israeli media this week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to secure cabinet consensus for an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and launched a similar sortie against Syria in 2007, precedents lending weight to its veiled threats to take similar action on Iran if foreign pressure fails to curb its nuclear program.

But many independent analysts see such a mission as too much for Israel to take on alone against Iran.

One senior Western diplomat said that international sanctions combined with sabotage operations like the Stuxnet computer virus that temporarily hobbled Iran's enrichment program have slowed Tehran's nuclear progress, reducing the need for the use of military force any time soon.

"Our policy of slowing things down has been successful, but it hasn't stopped it in its tracks," the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

Analysts say a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would wreak such damage on global prosperity and security that other means -- a mix of sanctions and sabotage -- must remain the levers of pressure on Tehran.

There are fears Iran could retaliate to an attack by temporarily severing the marine and pipeline arteries supplying a large part of global oil and gas demand.

Malcolm Chalmers, research director at Britain's Royal United Services Institute, described the impact of attacking Iran in stark terms: "You are talking about creating a wounded bear with very unpredictable consequences." (Writing by Louis Charbonneau; reporting by Reuters bureaux worldwide; Editing by Vicki Allen)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
SoundsBogus wrote:
What hypocrisy. The USA has plenty of nuclear plants throughout their country and Obama continues to support nuclear energy and the oil industry over clean solar power. If the west really doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear capabilities, then why not be good leaders and lead-in the solar power era — start selling photo voltaic panels instead of plutonium, uranium, missiles, bombs and guns to their enemies. If the U.S. and Israel continue to threaten Iran, of course they will feel the need to defend themselves. However, Iran continues to insist that they are NOT making nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Is this Obama’s plan — what to do with all the unemployed soldiers withdrawing from Iraq? Send them to Iran to look for fictitious nuclear weapons? I think it’s time things were turned around and the U.S. should be pressured, and sanctions imposed, to dismantle their Star-Wars weapons and nuclear missile sites. We all know that at present, the USA poses the biggest threat of global terrorism. We cannot let them continue to drone on a destructive path. Obama has a chance to set a good example where Bush failed. Though he may continually let-down American citizens with broken promises, let us encourage him to at least try to save the world. He has the power.

Nov 03, 2011 5:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sothatsit wrote:
The “distance” from Israel to Iran is not an issue holding Israel back from defending herself. While Iran is not a border country, I’m certain Israel could find a few proud pilots willing to do whatever is neccesary to defend Israel. I’m certain neighbors in the area could also be counted on to assist at a time of need. Just another “faux” argument to artificially make an excuse for Israel’s lack of action for years now. Any other nation on this planet would have immediately attacked whatever country sent their president to the UN to publicly and unequivocally state their desire to wipe them off the planet. Only Israel for some absurd notion of being more advanced culturally has had her hands tied from doing exactly to Iran what I ran dreams of doing to Israel. Year after year, continued advancement of weaponry with the sole purpose of making good on there dream of annihilating Israel have gone by, and still Israel is once again being held to a ridiculous standard of “don’t do anything until attacked to get sympathy from the world”. An absurd standard when talking about an aggressor that is known to have at a minimum “fissionable” material as bragged about by Ahmadinejad time and time again. If they don’t have “the bomb”, he certainly has eluded to it over and over again. Not to mention there constant missile tests and of course,well known relationship with N Korea. Appeasement of an aggressor is foolish at this point for the survival of Israel. When the threat of nuclear annihilation is primary, there is no margin for error, or absorbing a first strike from an aggressor. A first strike of even a small nuke would be annihilation for Israel. Which begs the question of Russia’s intentions in the first place. Are we really to believe that Mr Putin wasn’t capable of thinking this through before making the decision to sell and build a nuclear power plant to Iran?

Nov 03, 2011 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoundsBogus wrote:
Diplomats should be accountable, not anonymous. But, I suppose since he is encouraging sabotage — not a very diplomatic move, he/she will want to hide behind a diplomatic pouch. Even though there is nothing funny about about the US/Israel’s gluttonous appetite for military domination, the thought of kids in the sandbox comes to mind. Funny that the behaviours are so predictable. It’s clear who the bullies on the block are, and it’s time to send them home, before dark.

Nov 03, 2011 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.