Commenting on the Iranian nuclear programme at an Israeli Bar Association meeting the other day, US Ambassador Dan Shapiro said that Washington hoped it will not have to resort to military force "but that doesn't mean that the option is not fully available... the necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready." Although on earlier occasions Washington has said all options are on the table, the policy emphasis remains on imposing stringent economic sanctions on Iran and isolating the country, and also to giving diplomacy a chance.
In addition to the UN sanctions, the US has imposed tough new sanction on the Iranian central bank. As a result, Japan and India have started reducing Iranian oil imports, while the European Union has agreed to stop buying Iranian oil beginning July 1.
Meanwhile, the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA and Iranian representatives have been holding discussions on allowing inspectors access to controversial nuclear facilities. These are extremely important discussions in view of the fact that what happens in them will set the tone for the second round of talks between Iran and the five permanent UNSC members, along with Germany. The two sides are to meet in Baghdad on May 23. Given the background, especially the Baghdad meeting, it is possible that Shapiro's remarks were aimed at putting pressure on Iran so that it complies with the wishes of the big six. But more likely, they were meant to keep the hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from embarking on a misadventure that could create serious problems for the US. Reports coming out of Israel say that the atmosphere is rife with the talk of a possible strike this year, and that the "top of the government has gone into lockdown." If these reports are to be believed, the Netanyahu government reckons that the window of opportunity is before the US presidential election, which will force the Obama administration to lend practical support. The problem from Washington's perspective is that the chances of success are rather bleak and the likely consequences disastrous.
As experts have been pointing out, Iran's nuclear programme is spread out in different locations; and the more vital facilities have been built underground, rendering an attack that much difficult. It would take several strikes to destroy them, which won't be easy. And retaliation would be swift and strong. Tehran has already threatened that it would close the Strait of Hormuz, through which at least 20 percent of the world's oil supplies pass, sending the oil prices soaring skyward at a time when the Western economies are in deep trouble. Then, there are Iran's friends such as Hezbollah, whose leaders have been openly warning that any attack on Iran would set the entire Middle East ablaze. Even the generally moderate Palestine President Mehmoud Abbas told a Western news agency a few days ago that an Israeli attack on Iran would be "the end of the world." The last thing Washington, or for that matter Israel, needs after the two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is another fiasco in Iran. Hopefully, reason will prevail and both Washington and Tel Aviv will let the international community sort out the issue with Iran through the ongoing process of discussion and engagement with the IAEA.