Does the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of CentCom mean that the “war party” is back in control of American policy to Iran?

I doubt it’s quite that simple. From what we know both the secretaries of state and defence - Rice and Gates - are opposed to an attack. But there is no doubt that fallon was a key member of the “peace party”.

I met him at the IISS conference in Bahrain late last year, just after the US had published the famous NIE report that appeared to debunk the idea that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Fallon was cock-a-hoop. He was keen to underline what a fundamental re-assessment this was and how “wrong”, in his eyes, previous intelligence reports had been.

It could be that Fallon is resigning for reasons other than Iran. He is said to be a difficult guy to work with. All the same, I would say that the odds of an attack on Iran before the end of the Bush administration, have just gone up.

A week ago, the Americans were mad bombers. Now they are naive dupes. The Bush administration’s flip-flop over Iran’s nuclear programme has caused a somersault in the way America’s allies talk about US foreign policy in the Gulf.

The release of the latest US National Intelligence Assessment on Iran, with its jaw-dropping first sentence – “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme” – has come as a huge shock. It is now widely assumed that the Bush administration will not bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. It is also clear that it will become much harder to push through further UN sanctions against Iran. The Iranians, it seems, are off the hook.

This turn of events has inverted the usual stereotypes. The British and French – often typecast as appeasers of Iran – are furious with the Americans. They are convinced that the Iranians are still working on the bomb, even if they are not actively trying to “weaponise” their nuclear programme. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency – routinely accused by the Americans of being softies – now say that the US intelligence assessment is “generous”. The Gulf Arabs – who often complain about US belligerence – now worry aloud that America is planning to cut a deal with Iran. And the Iranian government is deeply grateful to America’s Central Intelligence Agency.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Comments can be made below.

The new US intelligence report on Iran is clearly a bit of a blow to those pressing for military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. As the FT explained this morning: "The key finding in the estimate, the product of more than 18 months of work by the 16 US intelligence agencies, is that Iran is probably not actively seeking to turn nuclear material into weapons."

You might expect that the only people who would be depressed by this news would be the hawks around Dick Cheney. But you would be wrong. I spent a bit of time today with some British policymakers who follow Iran and counter-proliferation closely. And they are not exactly jumping for joy.

(more…)

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first invite to address a joint session of Congress. Nicolas Sarkozy will adore his moment in the limelight tomorrow. Anybody would. But it will probably be particularly special for a man who, according to his estranged wife, sees power as "a Stradivarius" violin. Tomorrow’s speech will be like playing solo in Carnegie Hall.

Still, if he examines the list of around 100 world leaders to have been granted a similar honour, Sarkozy might be given pause. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated. Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah of Iran were overthrown. Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was murdered in an American-backed coup. Bettino Craxi, Syngman Ree and Carlos Salinas were driven into exile. Roh Tae Woo of South Korea was imprisoned for treason, mutiny and corruption. Being honoured by Congress is obviously a dangerous business.

It seems unlikely that Sarko will meet any of these grisly fates. The man whose example should really serve as a warning is Tony Blair. Blair is still alive and making speeches. But his address to a joint session of Congress in July 2003 - interrupted by innumerable flattering ovations - now looks like a low point rather than a triumph.

(more…)

The appointment of Bernard Kouchner as French foreign minister was both brilliant and bizarre. It was brilliant because in bringing Kouchner on board, President Sarkozy managed to co-opt one of the stars of the Socialist Party and one of the most popular men in France. Kouchner is revered because he founded Medecins Sans Frontieres. And also – perhaps – because he is articulate, good-looking and married to a TV star.

But choosing Kouchner was also a bit bizarre because he was one of the few high-profile French public figures to have supported the invasion of Iraq - albeit slightly equivocally and on humanitarian grounds. Given that France led the opposition to the Iraq war and - as Sarkozy himself has pointed out - was vindicated by subsequent events, appointing somebody who made the wrong call seemed odd.

But the experience of Iraq does not seem to have chastened Kouchner. This week he has made the headlines, by saying of Iran - "We have to prepare for the worst and the worst is war." This goes beyond even what George W. Bush has said. His preferred formula is that – “All options are on the table”.

(more…)

Britain is in a self-flagellating mood today. It is generally felt that “our boys” (and girl) did not exactly cover themselves in glory, after being captured by the Iranians while on naval duty. For a nation brought up on tales of heroic deeds by taciturn British prisoners-of-war, the garrulous and fearful behaviour of today’s captives was hard to take. And the discomfort has only been increased by the fact that the government allowed a couple of the former prisoners to sell their stories to the papers – a decision that has now been belatedly reversed.

The letters page of today’s Daily Telegraph – the paper of choice for retired colonels – is a good read. However the Sun, which bought the rights to the story of Faye Turney, the sole female captive, is naturally casting her in a much more forgiving light. It even offers its readers a ludicrous discussion forum on whether “hostage Faye” should get the Victoria Cross – Britain’s highest award for gallantry. I think the Telegraph’s readers would prefer to see her shot.

(more…)

I was in Brussels last week and talked to some of the European Union’s top foreign policy officials. The EU, of course, does not make policy for the Union on its own. But the Brussels foreign policy types do play an important role in framing and co-ordinating policy - and often serve as the public face of Europe. They are also have a unique vantage point. All European leaders spend a lot of time in Brussels. And everybody of importance - from President Bush to President Putin and the leaders of the Middle East - passes through at some point. One of the people I saw made a point of telling me how many important people had sat in the very chair in which I was now reclining. I was honoured, of course. (more…)

The country is developing weapons of mass destruction; its leader is a new Hitler; he has connections with terrorists; time is running out; containment has failed; we must strike before it is too late.

If you think you have heard it all before, you have. The arguments for an attack on Iran are almost exactly the same as the arguments that were made for an attack on Iraq. The people making the case have not changed either.

Here is James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, speaking at a conference last month about Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, president of Iran, and his talk of wiping Israel off the map: “Hitler meant it when he said he wanted to exterminate the Jews. It was spelt out in Mein Kampf. We need to take seriously what people like Ahmadi-Nejad and others say to their own followers. They are not lying; they are stating their true objectives.” And here is Mr Woolsey, speaking on American television in January 2003: “Saddam sounds very much, with respect to the 250m people or so in the Arab world, as Hitler sounded before world war two, with respect to Europe. The Ba’athist parties really are fascist parties… they’re anti-Semitic like them; they’re fascist.”

And here is the official summary of comments made at the same conference in Israel last month by Richard Perle, a former Pentagon official: “In possession of nuclear weapons, Iran is capable of using their terrorist networks to enable damage . . . The issue is one of timing and intelligence. You can’t afford to wait for all the evidence.” Once again, this is a reprise of a favourite tune. Appearing on American television in February 2003, Mr Perle argued: “Let us just agree that Saddam Hussein had those weapons and he is perfectly capable of transferring them to al-Qaeda.” Mr Perle emphasised the urgency of the problem: “There is a threat and I believe it is imminent.”

The remainder of  Gideon Rachman’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only).

Following the Baker report and the Blair visit to Washington, Iraq is on everybody’s minds. But – behind the scenes – almost as urgent a debate is taking place about Iran.

The excellent Swoop foreign policy analysis site points out that there is complete disagreement between James Baker and Vice-President Cheney about the idea of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Swoop reveals an interesting little detail – that Cheney actually has a signed photograph in his office from the Israeli air-force team that bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.

The Israeli factor is obviously critical to the whole debate. One former American spook, who knows President Bush well, reckons that in the aftermath of the mid-term elections and the Baker report, the chances of an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has fallen from around 30% to around 15%.

But Israel is the wild card.

(more…)

(more…)