Israeli strike on Iran would be 'premature': top US general

New York: The US believes talk of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program is “premature” and a top US military officer urged Israel on Sunday to hold off from any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, warning that such a move would be counterproductive and “destabilising.” In an interview aired on Sunday on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, General Martin Dempsey said US officials aren’t convinced Iran has decided to pursue nuclear weapons and so everyone should take a cautious approach. ( Watch the interview here.) Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the US was urging Israel not to attack Iran because it could spark retaliatory action in the region, possibly in Afghanistan or Iraq. [caption id=“attachment_216232” align=“alignright” width=“380” caption=“Israel is under pressure not to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. Reuters”]  [/caption] “We think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” Dempsey said. “That’s been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis. And we also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the capability — or the effort to weaponise their nuclear capability.” Dempsey said American officials believe an Israeli strike would delay Iran’s nuclear development “probably for a couple of years, but some of the targets are probably beyond their reach.” He said he and others have had “a very candid, collaborative conversation” with the Israelis about the issue. “I’m confident that they (Israel) understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilising and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” he said. “But, I mean, I also understand that Israel has national interests that are unique to them. And, of course, they consider Iran to be an existential threat in a way that we have not concluded that Iran is an existential threat.” Israel, which is widely believed to have the only nuclear weapons in West Asia, says a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The White House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions. Some analysts believe sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested. Britain urges Israel against military action “I don’t think the wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” British foreign minister William Hague, told BBC. “I think Israel, like everybody else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach that we have adopted, of very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.” China says there is no reason to embargo Iran oil sales China called on all sides to seize the opportunity for an early resumption of talks with Iran. It went a step further and said Iran wants to return to talks about its nuclear program, so there is no reason to embargo oil sales. “Iran has expressed its willingness to enhance cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to start a new round of fruitful dialogue on nuclear issues with China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the United States,” said Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu. The US and its allies say sanctions will slow Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. India, China, Russia and other oil-thirsty emerging powers are a long way from joining the Western sanctions. Despite US pressure to help squeeze Iran’s economy, they have consistently stood their ground on remaining loyal customers of Iranian oil. India hit with brickbats Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs and was former president George Bush’s point person in negotiating the India-US nuclear deal, vented in The Diplomat that India’s decision to “walk out of step with the international community on Iran” isn’t just a slap in the face for the US, but it raises questions about its ability to lead.” “For all the talk about India rising to become a global power, its government doesn’t always act like one. It is all too often focused on its own region but not much beyond it. And, it very seldom provides the kind of concrete leadership on tough issues that is necessary for the smooth functioning of the international system,” wrote Burns in The Diplomat. ( Read it here.) “India hasn’t stepped up to a leadership role in the negotiations and has resisted the option of being a bridge between the Iranian government and the West. It has, instead, been largely passive and even invisible on this critical issue….With its unhelpfulness on Iran and stonewalling on implementation of the landmark US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, however, the Indian government is now actively impeding the construction of the strategic relationship it says it wants with the United States,” fumed Burns. Despite Burns’ harsh assessment, most analysts don’t expect India’s neutrality or its unwillingness to finger Iran to seriously disrupt the US-Indian relationship. The Pentagon, in its strategic review, said it was investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India, and had identified China as a threat while declaring Asia as a US priority. The Pentagon practically came out and said outright that it views India as a counterbalance to China. Analaysts, however do agree that India should do more to talk the two sides down from a head-on Iran confrontation, “to be a strong, independent voice for sanity in the region.”