Wonder if the US and allies were wrong about Iraq, but right about Iran? Preemption has been discredited as a US foreign policy strategy, at least politically, if not strategically. The US is facing an incredible crisis of confidence in its very intelligence on WMD, its reliance on exiles with a certain agenda, its lack of human intelligence, the problem of the perception of the incredible politicization of US intelligence, and the uncertainty of interpretation of results gathered from signals intelligence, satellite imagery and foreign governments. Relying on diplomacy until the election at least seems to be the plan. From reporting in this area in recent weeks and months, and believe me, I am aware that I am no expert, I am convinced Iran is set to become the foreign policy priority for the US in coming months. I gather from experts coming from a range of of political inclinations however the sense that the Iran nuclear issue is a genuinely tough not to crack. If diplomacy fails, what options are open? I also wonder whether some people on this side of the pond have been persuaded there are people they would be prepared to work with on that end of the problem, and not just people from the opposition groups either; but some who may be very close to the leadership itself, but indicate they are prepared to chart a new course. Can they be trusted? And what is the consequence of US-Iran foreign policy being conducted almost entirely in secrecy, by proxy, and numerous back channels?

Posted by Laura at June 28, 2004 11:19 PM