Iran Countdown: "It is increasingly dangerous."

Below is the latest Bush policy on Iran: "It is increasingly dangerous".

Note that when Condi Rice is asked if Cheney agrees with her diplomatic approach to Iran's "threat," she doesn't give a straight answer. Why the coyness? We need to know more about precisely what Cheney is arguing and how the internal debate is unfolding. The word in the State Department, as neo-con ideologue and ex-diplomat John Bolton contended recently, is that Rice's influence is ascendant in the administration's foreign policy. Cheney is losing influence by the day, including with Bush. As I see it from here, the Veep nonetheless still manages to keep the military option on Bush's desk. As I blogged recently, the next 18 months are very important to watch. Don't assume that because Iraq hasn't gone so well, Bush won't dream of touching Iran.

Excerpts from Rices interview on CNBC Friday:

QUESTION: Out of all of the countries posing threats to America right now, including Russia, Iran, Korea, China, which do you feel is the most dangerous?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would say that -- Russia I don't consider even in that category. Let me be very clear, we have our differences with Russia and some of those differences produce conflict, but by no means is this the Soviet Union. We have far more areas of cooperation with Russia than we have areas of conflict.

But when I look at Russia, I think that there's a very good reason to have a good relationship with Russia and it's to deal, for instance, with one of the other countries on your list, Iran. This is a relationship that is, I think, increasingly difficult and a country that is increasingly dangerous. Its support of terrorism around the world in places like --supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, supporting very radical elements of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian territories, what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq, where it is supporting and arming militias that are then threatening our force presence in Iraq.

If you look at Iran's pursuit of the technologies that would lead to a nuclear weapon despite Chapter 7, the most serious Security Council resolution you can have -- two Chapter 7 resolutions against Iran -- they continue to pursue these policies, not to mention the crackdown on their own population that has caught up some Iranian Americans, one woman who was just going home to visit her elderly mother. So this is a very dangerous state with very dangerous policies. And we need the help and support and intense efforts of the international community to deal with Iran.

QUESTION: Should the U.S. consider military retaliation?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President's never going to take his options off the table and frankly, no one should want the American President to take his options off the table. But the President's made clear that we believe that diplomatic solutions to the Iranian problem are very much possible. And if the international community acts with the kind of intensity and the kind of commitment that it can, we will solve the problem in Iran.

Right now -- something that would perhaps be of interest to your listeners, we are working on financial measures that really will say to the Iranians, "You cannot use the benefits of the international financial system and continue to pursue a nuclear weapon." And frankly, people are looking differently at investment risk in Iran. People are looking differently at reputational risk in Iran. When we know that there are Iranian banks, like Bank Sepah, that was actually named in a UN Security Council resolution, that are all tied up with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, I think international financial institutions that depend a lot on reputation are not going to want to be even close to a country that is under a Chapter 7 resolution. And so we have means at our disposal to change Iranian behavior.

QUESTION: Is there a divide within the Administration between your diplomatic efforts and Dick Cheney's?

SECRETARY RICE: The Administration, the President and his Administration, are completely supportive of what we're trying to do on Iran. Now, it's not an either/or. I myself believe very strongly in what the President did in January when we had put our carrier strike group into the Gulf to demonstrate that the United States will defend its allies and will defend its interests. It is extremely important that we aggressively go after Iranians and Iranian activities in Iraq when we see them engaging in activities that can threaten our forces.

So yes, there has to be an element to this that sends the Iranians a very strong message that there are coercive elements to our policy as well.

A day earlier, The Huffington Post ran an interview by Nathan Gardels with former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who favors a diplomatic approach but thinks we are headed toward military action. Bush's ability to act ceases in 18 months when a new American president is inaugurated; interestingly, Ross points out, 18 months may also be the deadline for making a successful strike (by the U.S. or Israel) on Iran's nuclear program, because Iran's Russian-upgraded air defense system will be completed in the next year and a half.

For Israel, the "redline" is not so much when Iran has enough enrichment capacity for weapons-grade material. Their deadline is 18 months from now when Iran's air defense system, which is being upgraded by the Russians, will be completed. That will make it much more difficult to successfully strike Iran's nuclear capacity from the air. The closer we get to that window without resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem, the more Israel will feel compelled to strike.

Clearly, at the moment, we are headed down the path of use of force. The slow-motion diplomacy of the West simply does not match the rapid development of Iran's nuclear capacity and the closing window when Iran's upgraded air defenses will be in place...

We are headed on a pathway now that will lead to the use of force. We don't want it to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives, but the clock is ticking.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo