US President George W. Bush arrives at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, 06 April 2006. Critics of the Bush administration expressed alarm about explosive new reports that the president is mulling military options to knock out Iran's nuclear program. [AFP]

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," the president said last month in Cleveland. "That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally."

Vice President Dick Cheney told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC last month, "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed in an April 1 interview with British television channel ITV that the United States is committed to diplomacy to solve the issue. "However," she added, "the president of the United States doesn't take his options off the table."

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said Sunday that the president and State Department are working with other nations "to address diplomatically the troublesome activities of the Iranian government. And the U.S. military never comments on contingency planning."

Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies U.S. foreign policy, said it would be no surprise that the Pentagon has contingency plans for strike on Iran. But he the administration's hint of military strikes is more of a show to Iran and the public than a feasible option.

"If you look at the military options, all of them are unattractive," Cimbala said. "Either because they won't work or because they have side effects where the cure is worse than the disease."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., criticized the administration for using "shoot from the hip, cowboy diplomacy" during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said the president should be doing more to get sanctions against Iran. He said even though the military option must be left open, "it's a terrible option fundamentally, and they know it and everybody else knows it."

The New Yorker magazine said the administration had increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack and that one option envisioned the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon to insure the destruction of Iran' s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.

The New York Times quoted officials as rejecting the contention that the administration was considering the use of nuclear weapons.

The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential "Adolf Hitler."

"That's the name they're using," Hersh quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

Hersh told CNN's Late Edition show that a "messianic" president feels driven to try to contain Iran and that the White House is determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong objections from some top Pentagon officials.

"It's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) in an uproar," he said.

"He (Bush) thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it," said Hersh, the reporter who also broke the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

Hersh reports in his article that the administration already has advance forces on the ground in Iran.

"I think it's fraught with danger. But they're there," he told CNN.

Page:

1

2

3