- $1 billion Empire State Building IPO: why it won't be like Facebook IPO
- In surprise move, GOP leaders admit defeat in payroll tax battle
- More than 30,000 Germans turn out against anti-piracy treaty ACTA
- Does Obama blueprint reduce budget deficit fast enough? (+video)
- Pentagon budget: Does it pit active-duty forces against retirees? (+video)
- Murdoch media crisis deepens with five new arrests
- How Pinterest combines the best parts of Facebook, Tumblr, and Etsy
- US, China face 'trust deficit' as China's heir apparent visits
Why pressing Iran over nukes is a difficult road
New intelligence report says Iran is further from producing nuclear weapons than previously thought - perhaps reducing urgency of action.
WASHINGTON
The Iranian government is playing what is being called "a game of chicken" with the international community, first threatening to restart a key element of its suspended nuclear program this week, and then putting it off - only to announce it will reopen a sealed uranium conversion plant next week after all.
Regardless of whether the Iranians, who are in the midst of a postelection political transition, follow through on the threat, their recent actions - and the response of Western nations - suggest that a full-blown confrontation between the powers is probably not imminent, experts say.
The Europeans don't want one - and the Americans don't appear to be ready and united for one.
The three European countries that have been negotiating with Iran for a full suspension of its nuclear program did stick together and threaten Iran with reprisals - including referral to the United Nations Security Council - if it proceeded with plans to restart its nuclear efforts. That stand surprised some in the Bush administration and seemed to validate President Bush's second-term veering toward greater cooperation with allies.
But with the "EU 3," as Britain, Germany, and France are called, set to offer Iran extensive economic incentives in exchange for ending its nuclear ambitions, the Europeans continue to favor a strategy that differs widely from the Americans'.
Iran is on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, and US officials worry that a nuclear Iran would become a conduit for nuclear materials to other states or terrorist groups.
Divisions over Iran that characterized US policy during the first Bush term are on display again. When the freshly appointed US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, made his introductory rounds in New York this week, he reportedly broached the subject of Security Council action against Iran in talks with fellow ambassadors.
As the past undersecretary of State for arms control, Mr. Bolton was one of the administration's principal hawks on Iranian nukes.
But Bolton was debuting at the UN even as a new National Intelligence Estimate surfaced, first in an apparent leak to The Washington Post, that doubles to 10 years the estimated time it would take for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
For some US experts, the estimate undercuts the viewpoint that action is urgently needed, making a tough international stance with Iran unlikely.
"The US and its allies are not in a position to talk about real, meaningful measures to punish Iran [for proceeding with its nuclear program]," says Daniel Brumberg, an Iran expert at Georgetown University in Washington.
He says the Europeans "are trying to play it tough, but the Iranians know it would be difficult for them to ever go through with it." At the same time, he says the Bush administration is not united on how far and how fast to proceed on Iran- not to mention the "delicate factor" of Iran's influence in Iraq and the cooperation the US needs for progress there. "They are on the horns of a dilemma that is of their own making," he says.
Page: 1 | 2 
