White House frustrated with (UK Prime Minister Gordon) Brown over Iran

White House frustrated with Brown over Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/wiran111.xml



By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 2:19am GMT 12/11/2007

The Bush administration is losing patience with Gordon Brown over Iran, with senior American diplomats frustrated by his reluctance to declare bluntly that the Islamic state must never be allowed nuclear weapons. Allies of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East.

The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime.

Ms Rice's inner circle argue that unless Iran believes that its defiance of the international community will lead to serious economic and military consequences, there is little hope of diplomacy succeeding. They regard Britain as a key to that effort.

Nile Gardner, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher and an expert on transatlantic relations at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said: "Britain is clearly losing influence in Washington after Tony Blair. Brown is the invisible man in terms of his profile here. "It should be of concern in London that France is muscling in on traditional British territory."

it's no surprise that Brown is cautious.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000779fd2ac.html

US strike on Iran ‘not being prepared’
By Demetri Sevastopulo, Daniel Dombey and Andrew Ward in Washington

Published: November 12 2007 00:01 | Last updated: November 12 2007 00:01

The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers.

Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that while dealing with Iran was a “challenge”, a strike was not “in the offing”.


“None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.

“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”

Adm Fallon did not rule out the possibility of a strike at some point. But his comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.

In recent months, President George W. Bush and his top officials have made a string of tough statements that have fuelled speculation that the US was preparing to strike Iran over its nuclear programme. Adm Fallon declined to comment specifically on whether the US rhetoric was feeding the speculation, but said that “generally, the bellicose comments are not particularly helpful”.

“That said we have to make sure that there is no mistake here on the part of the Iranians about our resolve in tending to business in the region,” said Adm Fallon. “There has got to be some combination of strength and willingness to engage. How to come up with the right combination of that is the real trick.”

Several senior active and retired miltary officers told the FT that the Pentagon believes striking Iran at this point would be a strategic mistake, as even a limited air strike could spark a broader conflict.

“The US might think in terms of a limited strike but military officers like to point out that the enemy has a vote,” said Jo-Anne Hart, an Iran expert at Brown University who consults for the military. Retired General Anthony Zinni, a former Centcom commander, said the US military was “stretched too thin” to fight a protracted war with Iran.

Retired Gen John Abizaid, who preceeded Adm Fallon, recently said the US should avoid a war with Iran, which would be “devastating for everybody”. He added that the US should do everything to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but said Washington could live with that outcome if it happened.

In another sign that the Pentagon is trying to reduce tensions with Iran, the US military this week released nine Iranians it had been holding in Iraq. The move came after Robert Gates, defence secretary, confirmed that Tehran had told the Iraqi government it would be willing to stop sending weapons to militias in Iraq.

Speaking to the FT before the release, Adm Fallon said there had “certainly been a downturn” in roadside bomb attacks on US forces, but that the “jury is still out” on whether Iran had reduced its support for militias in Iraq.

“We need to see them do something along the lines of ‘we are serious about having a dialogue’ and then maybe we can do something,” he added.