Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies

[muriel_volestrangler]

· Transatlantic rift emerges over how to handle crisis
· America builds up its naval forces in the Gulf

Senior European policy-makers are increasingly worried that the US administration will resort to air strikes against Iran to try to destroy its suspect nuclear programme.

As transatlantic friction over how to deal with the Iranian impasse intensifies, there are fears in European capitals that the nuclear crisis could come to a head this year because of US frustration with Russian stalling tactics at the UN security council. "The clock is ticking," said one European official. "Military action has come back on to the table more seriously than before. The language in the US has changed."
...
Although the Iranians were primarily in Shia areas, they were not confined to them, the US source said, implying that they had formed links with Sunni insurgents and were helping them with booby-trap bombs aimed at Iraqi and US forces, new versions of the "improvised explosive devices".
...
But diplomats in Brussels and those dealing with the dispute in Vienna say a fissure has opened up between the US and western Europe on three crucial aspects - the military option; how and how quickly to hit Iran with economic sanctions already decreed by the UN security council; and how to deal with Russian opposition to action against Iran through the security council.

"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2002329,00.html

It's not just the DU "it's all about to kick off" crowd any more (because, let's face it, some people here have confidently predicted an attack against Iran in 2004, 2005 and 2006). Now there are real diplomats who think Bush is really trying to stir the pot until he thinks he has an excuse to attack. This seems to include charges of Iranians working with both Sunni and Shia insurgents - it looks liek Bush will throw anything against the wall in the hope of seeing what sticks.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. If they feel that strongly, what are the chances of NATO threatening

to frustrate any U.S. military folly concerning Iran? Not that NATO would be in favor necessarily of a "nuclear" Iran, but more or less making the point that this country cannot continue to capriciously invade target countries (please excuse the alliteration).

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. A good question - if all NATO countries denied use of airspace

to the US military, it would make it more difficult to launch an attack, but it depends on the reaction of individual leaders and governments, really (eg Blair woulnd't go against the US, I think, and he intends to remain in power until at least June; his successor Brown might be agai9nst an attack, but it's not certain. I suspect they could survive a vote of no confidence in parliament, though - Labour government ministers and acolytes, and the Tories, would probably form a majority).

I suspect it would most likely be a replay of Iraq - possibly with a few less NATO countries supporting the USA, but those against it not doing anything concrete to stop it.

[Eugene]

3. NATO works by consensus. It is likely that NATO will do nothing.

The United States could not persuade NATO to help invade Iraq
due to French and German opposition. In the end, the NATO
allies stood ready in case things got out of hand, but they
did not participate.

This time, the allies are similarly divided over Iran.
Don't expect NATO to intervene one way or the other.