Iran Envoy Dismisses Threats Of Attack

Iran's Top Diplomat Predicts U.S., Israel In No Position To Launch Military Strike

(CBS/ AP)  It seems there is a chance Iran may be ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program, in exchange for international assistance and development aid, reports CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Lara Logan.

Iran's top diplomat promised an answer on negotiations "very soon" Wednesday at the United Nations and struck an unusually gentle tone as he dismissed any suggestions of conflict with Israel of the U.S.

"We do not predict a major tension or conflict in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Logan.

Mottaki predicted that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Mottaki said that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.

His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.

"We do not foresee such a possibility at the moment. The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said through his translator. "The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.

"Of course, there are people in the United States who are interested in that. But we think that the rational thinkers in the United States will prevent from that action being taken, and will prevent the imposition of another adventuresome act that would put pressure on the American taxpayers."

President George W. Bush and others in Washington made it clear Wednesday that all options are on the table with regard to Iran and its nuclear program, but a military strike would not be Bush's first choice in the waning months of his presidency.

There have been growing worries that the conflict between Iran and the West over the nuclear issue could broaden into a more violent conflict, particularly if Israel tried to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia — as well as Germany have offered new talks if Iran signals it is prepared to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

Although Iran prefers the diplomatic route, Mottaki said, he pointedly did not rule out trying to restrict oil traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz if Iran was attacked.

"In Iran, we must defend our national security, our country and our revolutionary system and we will continue to do so," he said. If his country was ever targeted militarily, he added, "politicians must step aside a bit and allow the military to make decisions."

But in the interview, conducted at AP's world headquarters in New York, Mottaki also signaled that a dialogue remains open to resolve the impasse and indicated Iran is seriously considering the offer of new talks. "We see and have observed some improvement in the U.S. position," he said.

He was not the only one apparently seeking to defuse tensions Wednesday.

"I have made it very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be solve this problem diplomatically," Bush said. "And the best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message — and that is, you will be isolated, and you will have economic hardship if you continue to enrich."

At a Defense Department news conference, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a high-risk move that could destabilize the Middle East.

Mullen would not say, however, what Israeli leaders told him during meetings last week about any intentions to strike Iran. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," he said. "Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us."

He said that Iran would not have the ability to sustain a blockade of ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

Mottaki, who was in New York for talks at the United Nations, hinted there has been diplomatic progress on easing tensions with the West. He struck a conciliatory tone toward the United States and said he sees improvements in the U.S. tone recently as well as in some recent diplomatic offerings to Iran.

But his visit also comes on the heels of a report by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker that the United States has stepped up covert action intended to destabilize Iran's religious leadership. Mottaki described it as one of a series of such U.S. operations in Iran.

"We've become familiarized in the past 30 years with this approach by the United States," he said. "The United States has almost depleted all possible means it had in this direction."

In the interview, Mottaki denied U.S. claims that Iran helps arm and train Shiite militias in Iraq. "We are for stability in Iraq ... within a democratic system and framework that brings all who wish to operate within that framework together," he said.

Last month, the U.S. and its partners offered a package to Iran that included assistance for its civil nuclear program and development aid in exchange for an agreement by Iran to end nuclear enrichment. Iran claims that program is for peaceful purposes; Western powers say they suspect its true aim is to develop nuclear weapons.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, presented the package on behalf of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

Mottaki said Iran was still examining the proposal and would respond shortly. Alluding to news reports that Iran's answer would come in two weeks, he added: "Maybe even sooner."

He also praised as "very constructive" Solana's response to Iran's proposals on the subject. Mottaki said he saw "significant capacities" being explored in the latest round of talks that were not present earlier.

He also blamed the recent rise in oil prices globally in part on political tensions in the Middle East.

In Madrid on Wednesday, Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari warned that an attack on his country would provoke a fierce response "that nobody can imagine." Nozari said, however, that Tehran would not cut oil deliveries and would continue supplying the market even if struck by Israel or the United States.

Mottaki said he believes Iran is misunderstood and misrepresented, and again denied any ambition by Tehran for nuclear weapons. He also held out the possibility of discussions toward allowing a U.S. diplomatic office to open in Iran and on permitting direct flights between Iran and the United States.

"While downplaying the feasibility and need for a military confrontation, Iran’s Foreign Minister said that Iran will respond soon to an offer by the West to negotiate a resolution to its nuclear program and that there was a new atmosphere in the talks,” said CBS Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N. Wednesday, “but Mottaki made a point to say that if attacked, Iran will defend its country and its national interest.”

[samsel3]

The US invasion of Iraq Knocked out oil supplies to two of Saddam''s biggest customers, China & Russia. Both countries were not happy with the situation.

Both countries then signed deals with Iran. The Russians have been building multiple nuclear plants with trade for oil and China sealed direct supply deals.

Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007.

Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios.

[toolmangler-2009]

I don''''t mean to sound un-American but the Iran diplomat is making a lot more sense than our government.
Posted by kennedy7955 at 02:50 PM : Jul 03, 2008



He is mocking and insulting us but most people will not see it because they don''t understand the culture that he comes from.

[noloyalisti]

If Butch-Vader starts any violence against Iran, I will immediately raise my tax withholding to the maximum amount. I recommend everyone does the same and spread the word. We also should consider boycotts against specific war profiteers like GE and general strikes.

[whiskyrocker]

OneAmerican :

You are one delusional individual. Once again I don''t remember seeing you in the sand.

[leftyintexas]

Hey liberals-Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq. It''''s not to late to admit you were completely wrong about the war, you know!
Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:57 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Talk about the ''dream'' bushite....

[floydzepp2]

Hey liberals-Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq. It''s not to late to admit you were completely wrong about the war, you know!
Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:57 PM : Jul 03, 2008
-------------
Ooo. You say it and somehow we''re supposed to believe. What a hoot.

Sorry to burst your bubble sweet pea. but:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080703/wl_csm/ohome

A ''surge'' unit sees change, but questions its permanence

[kennedy7955]

I don''t mean to sound un-American but the Iran diplomat is making a lot more sense than our government.

[kennedy7955]

and still the US has no energy policy.

[kennedy7955]

Leave it to bush and his supporters to screw things up for everyone INCLUDING THEMSELVES.

Bush has been quoted as saying that he didn''t care if the only supporters left were his wife and his dog. With that mindset, he can''t even see that he has screwed himself - but he knows he screwed everyone else and couldn''t give a ***.

[lochlan-2009]

"Iran''s Top Diplomat Predicts U.S., Israel In No Position To Launch Military Strike"

Yeah, but talking about rasies the price of oil.

Are you all half-wits?

[leftyintexas]

NAUcoming4U.....I believe any strike on the Iranian nuclear facilitites would be carried out by bomber, strike aircraft and guided missles....a troop invasion is probably not necessary or possible, given the shear size and mountainous size of Iran

Posted by Minuteman-1 at 01:19 PM : Jul 03, 2008

I hope you are not suggesting that ANY attack on Iran would not be without serious reprecussions to us as well as to the rest of the world. Our economy would be crippled by the resulting oil shortage and we would have to invade because Iran will not sit still while all this is going on. The other problem is... we don''t have enough troops to carry out another invasion. Leave it to bush and his supporters to screw things up for everyone INCLUDING THEMSELVES.

[kennedy7955]

If the US goes to war with Iran, I will leaving the country.

[naucoming4u]

Look for bush to start bombarding the public with more and more war-like rhetoric as he prepares the public for his next war... the invasion of Iran. He wants desperately to attack Iran before his term ends. The next President whether it''''s Obama or McCain will inherit a world war crisis that will bring down America''''s ecomomy as well as the rest of the world''''s. And there will still be morons out there that think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. We live live in very scary times!

Posted by leftyintexas at 02:12 PM : Jul 03, 2008
............

The rhetoric in preparing for a war with Iran will be used to help McCain for his election. The (hypothetical) plan is simple...

...convince the stupid among us (plenty of them), that military experience would be necessary in a time of a "new" war. For those idiots who vote... but only get their news/current events from the "top-of-the-hour" news breaks... in between prime-time reality shows... would fall for the "McCain military experience" krappola... hook, line, and sinker!

[naucoming4u]

NAUcoming4U.....I believe any strike on the Iranian nuclear facilitites would be carried out by bomber, strike aircraft and guided missles....a troop invasion is probably not necessary or possible, given the shear size and mountainous size of Iran

Posted by Minuteman-1 at 01:19 PM : Jul 03, 2008
..............

The Tor-M1 anti-air missile is capable of tracking, targeting, and intercepting multiple targets, specifically cruise missiles... especially the low and slow flying type like our Tomahawks and Harpoons!

Iran now has many of these systems in place that were imported from Russia, beginning a few years ago.

To your other point/post:

Yes, the Shahab-3 ballistic missile is capable of what you said. But there is one serious flaw in the logic that Iran would use missiles to attack another country, and that is simple...

...nothing leaves a calling card more than a land-based launch of a ballistic missile. As well, it would take Iran many years to have a nuclear device able to be made into a warhead, to be put atop a missile like the Shahab-3. Israel has dozens to hundreds of deliverable nuclear warheads right now. It would take Iran many decades to even come close to that number. If anything, Iran would use a nuclear device as a terrorist carried bomb as opposed to launching a missile. The technology to build a nuclear bomb is immense in scale... but to build a warhead, small enough to fit on a ballistic missile... is many times greater!

[leftyintexas]

He''''s right. But, that won''''t stop a lunatic like Bush from attacking Iran. Only we can do that by demanding that Congress refuses to authorize and fund any such war.

Posted by caliguy55 at 01:02 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Look for bush to start bombarding the public with more and more war-like rhetoric as he prepares the public for his next war... the invasion of Iran. He wants desperately to attack Iran before his term ends. The next President whether it''s Obama or McCain will inherit a world war crisis that will bring down America''s ecomomy as well as the rest of the world''s. And there will still be morons out there that think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. We live live in very scary times!

[naucoming4u]

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!

Posted by NAUcoming4U at 11:21 AM : Jul 03, 2008

Please provide the name of anyone in a position of power who thinks this.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:14 PM : Jul 03, 2008

george bush and di@k cheney.

Posted by leftyintexas at 02:01 PM : Jul 03, 2008
..........

...and the brain dead morons who follow their every word as gospel!

[leftyintexas]

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!


Posted by NAUcoming4U at 11:21 AM : Jul 03, 2008

Please provide the name of anyone in a position of power who thinks this.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:14 PM : Jul 03, 2008

george bush and di@k cheney.

[ringading3]

Maybe the world needs Iran to nuke Israel? Then there would be peace.

[cfin5]

They''ll show Kim Jong Mentallyill how he should have done it. We''ll watch a rerun here.

[samthetvcat]

---"Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq."---
Posted by OneAmerican

First off, the ''press'' as for-profit ventures exist to make money. Their primary reason for being is not necessarily to provide the truth. Many in the press supported invasion in Iraq in the first place - they''re not stupid, and they didn''t lack information . . . so if they weren''t guided by truth then isn''t the reason they take certain positions possibly because avoiding getting ''Dixie Chicked'' by those in power might be more important to the bottom line?

Second off, ''Mission Accomplished'' was a military military success - 2 years later Iraq was mired in civil war. Post-game analysis revealed that the military is not good at reading people and nation-building. The ''Surge'' appears to be a military success - the GOP do not ever cite changed mindsets and have not articulated any plans on how to succeed at nation-building. So based on that trend, two years from now, where do you expect Iraq to be in terms of progress? Please provide facts/theory/quotations of ASSESSMENTS as opposed to SPECULATIONS which substantiate your claims. Thx!

2 years later . . . ?