US embassy cable - 05DHAKA4040

UNCLAS DHAKA 004040 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE 
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY), SA/RA, INR/R/MR, AND PASS TO 
USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B 
 
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (LCDR FLETCHER), 
J45 (MAJ NICHOLLS) 
 
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ STYNER) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KMDR, OIIP, OPRC, KPAO, PREL, ETRD, PTER, ASEC, BG, OCII 
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Iranian Nuclear Program; Dhaka 
 
Summary:  A News Today editorial says if the US exercises 
its option to use force in Iran it would be not because of 
sound reasoning but because of Americans' and their leaders' 
inflated egos. 
 
----------------------- 
Iranian Nuclear Program 
----------------------- 
 
"Who Will Blink First?" 
Independent English daily "The News Today" editorially 
comments (8/16/05): 
 
Who will blink first---Washington or Tehran?  With a known 
hardliner taking over as Iran's new President the answer to 
this key question has become uncertain. Defying bans and 
persuasions Tehran has reopened its Isfahan nuclear 
facility with the expressed desire to process uranium---the 
key ingredient necessary for both peaceful and military use 
of nuclear energy.  By reopening this plant within hours of 
President Bush refusing to rule out use of force as an 
option Teheran has sent a clear message to all those who 
want a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Iran may not go that 
far but it wouldn't be prudent to underestimate the 
determination of the new regime and the anger of the 
Iranian people. 
Ahmedinejad, the new elected President of Iran, had earned 
the reputation of a hardliner as the Mayor of Teheran.  On 
Sunday, he put two other hardliners in charge of the 
Foreign Ministry and OPEC (Organization of Petroleum 
Exporting Countries). These are indications enough that 
Iran, a major non-Arab oil producer, would pursue its 
eyeball-to-eyeball policy with the western countries that 
have ravaged neighboring Iraq for what is now 
internationally accepted as a bid to control the Middle- 
East oil. The allegations of Saddam Hussein having weapons 
of mass destruction (WMD) were plain subterfuge. 
It stands to reason that the new Iranian leaders have 
assessed the international situation thoroughly before 
hurling defiance at the US. The Iraq adventure has turned 
into a bloody mess, the world opinion has become more 
hostile and even some of the alliance partners have become 
skeptical. Italy's decision to pull its troops out of Iraq 
is an example. The drop in the domestic approval rating for 
the Bush administration is of no consequence because Bush 
cannot have a third term. In a situation like this, would 
the US and its loyal ally, UK, open a new and far more 
dangerous front? Perhaps the only cause of concern for 
Teheran is the possibility of the US using its leverage to 
get sanctions approved by the UN Security Council. For more 
than eleven long years Iraq had paid a very heavy price, 
including the deaths of nearly half a million children, due 
to the sanctions imposed following the Kuwait invasion. 
Tehran is not alone in refusing to blink, there is 
Pyongyang also. The six-nation talks have hardly made any 
progress and North Korea retains its options. Therefore, it 
is difficult at this stage to foresee how the situation 
would develop. If at all the US exercises its option to use 
force it would be not because of sound reasoning but 
because of the Americans' and their leaders' inflated egos. 
But as a small nation struggling to make its both ends meet 
we need a peaceful world. A vast majority of the 192 UN 
members also wants peace. But the question is will the lone 
super power and its poodles allow this? Only future can 
answer this question. 
Chammas