U.S. CLAIMS NO ATTACK FORTHCOMING ON IRAN

Oh good! Helene Cooper writes for NYTimes.com today that Condi Rice says the United States is not pushing for an attack on Iran. If this is true, then those pushing for a diplomatic solution to U.S. -Iranian relations seem to have won over the forces of darkness led by Dick Cheney who have been looking for ways to provoke Iran and get the U.S. into another catastrophic war in the Middle East

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought today to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed new warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

"“The President of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States." . . .

"Ms. Rice’s assurance on U.S. strategy came as senior officials at the State Department are expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.

"In a news conference today, Ms. Rice maintained that Vice President Cheney supports her strategy of trying to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy. A senior Bush administration official separately denied that there is a deep divide between Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney on Iran.

"But, the official said, “the vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.“ The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about any divide within the administration."

Cheney's hawkish attitude towards Iran cannot merely be laid at the voluble mouths of his aides. After all it was Dick Cheney who last month successfully argued that the five Iranian diplomats taken into U.S. detention in Iraq last January be incarcerated for at least another six months. This was done even though everyone knew it was sure to provoke Iran and its leaders. There has been no evidence produced by the U.S. indicating that these five Iranians were anything but diplomats, even though the military and other neo-con hawks like to imply they were on more than diplomatic missions.

Today, George Bush repeated his call that Iran release the four Iranian-Americans taken into custody over the past several months, while they were visiting family and friends in Iran. Helene Cooper reports:

"President Bush said today that American citizens being held in Iran — Haleh Esfandiari, Parnaz Azima, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Ali Shakeri — “have dedicated themselves to building bridges between the American and Iranian people, a goal the Iranian regime claims to support,” Mr. Bush said. “Their presence in Iran — to visit their parents or to conduct humanitarian work — poses no threat. Indeed, their activities are typical of the abiding ties that Iranian-Americans have with their land of origin.”"

Why couldn't the same statement be made by President Ahmadinejad of Iran about the five Iranians held captive by Bush and the U.S.? The five Iranians were in Iraq because there is close ties between the Iranian people and the majority Shias in Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq is dominated by Shias, both in the executive and legislative branches.

I have a solution. Let the U.S. trade Iran: the five Iranians for the four Iranian-Americans. Certainly there is no evidence that the four Iranian-Americans are guilty of espionage or treason or attempts to overthrow the Iranian government. Iran should release them. And the United States should give back its five Iranian prisoners. This should be done immediately.