Strata Lucida

Saber-rattling or slip of the tongue?

There are more worrisome blips today on the attack-Iran front. One of the possible scenarios is a strike by Israel on select Iranian targets thought to be developing nuclear capability. Of course, to attack Iran, Israel would need permission to fly over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Iraq. Only the last is at all likely, and Israeli flyover of Iraq would imply American support for the mission. At a news conference Thursday, President Bush seemed to be of two minds on whether such an attack is imminent. Here's how it played out in the Associated Press:

Bush reaffirmed that Iran is not now in danger of a U.S. attack, despite the administration's belief that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons; Iran denies that charge. "There's more diplomacy, in my judgment, to be done," the president said.

Asked about his level of concern that Israel might attack Iran to prevent its Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms, Bush responded with an assurance to Israel of U.S. protection.

"If I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well," he said. "We will support Israel if her security is threatened."

Translation: "If we feel like attacking, we'll go ahead and do so, but we're going to keep a plausible distance from it by allowing Israel to do the deed for us."

The Telegraph plays the story rather differently. The article repeats the same "we will support Israel" quote, but goes on with a very different interpretation:

His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington.

Moments later, Mr Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time emphasising the need for a diplomatic effort.

(Hat tip: John Robb for the Telegraph piece.)

Posted by Chris at February 18, 2005 09:18 AM | TrackBack