THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon sources have confirmed.

Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against Tehran.

The purported plan targets 400 sites including nuclear facilities, air defenses and Revolutionary Guard headquarters using "bunker busters" and submarine launched cruise missiles but not nuclear weapons.

The Herald also reports that British officials confirm that they have contingency plans for handling expected uprisings by sympathetic Shias in the Basra region.

While American war planners put the final touches on their work, officials from Germany, France and Britain are trying hard to formulate a package that would be acceptable to both the U. S. and Iran.  The most recent idea is to offer Iran a European-built "light-water" reactor in return for their foregoing their own uranium enrichment.  The Guardian reports:

Britain, France and Germany are considering offering Iran a light-water nuclear reactor in return for abandoning its uranium enrichment programme which the west suspects is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

The proposed offer came the day after Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said the three European countries were working on a "bold" offer to Tehran.

But are either of the two primary antagonists interested?  Iran has said, even after the "floating" of the light-water reactor idea, that it is not interested in any proposal that limits its right to pursue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.  Even an EU diplomat characterized the offer of incentives as mere posturing to put pressure on Russian and China to support a U. N. Chapter 7 resolution:

But they made clear they saw little prospect that Iran would accept, and were aiming above all to demonstrate to sceptics such as Russia and China that the West was not trying to deprive Iran of civilian nuclear energy.

"No one believes that this reactor will be built, because Iran will say 'No'," an EU diplomat said, adding that a European reactor would be much more expensive for the Iranians than the $1 billion Russian plant currently under construction.

The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.

Reuters reports that EU diplomats are confident of U. S. support for the EU3 propsal, in part because they're sure Iran will reject the offer.  Agence France-Presse reports that Nicholas Burns,  Under Secretary of State, describes the proposal as still under discussion with active U. S. participation.  The Guardian believes that the U. S. is not happy with the reactor proposal and could "scupper the plan."

The Guardian also sees a battle within the Bush administration:

The Bush administration is divided over Iran. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, supports the EU's decision to offer incentives to Iran but may decide the offer of a nuclear reactor is a step too far. Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, favours a more hawkish approach.

This coincides with reports from the conservative London Telegraph about a Rice-Cheney disagreement over Russia and Iran, and is eerily reminiscent of leaks from a skeptical State Department in the runup to the Iraq War.

AFP is now reporting that the meeting of the Permanent 5 plus Germany set for Friday in London has been postponed until next week.  The reason(s)?  Maybe it's just to polish off the details of the plan or it could be a disagreement between the U. S. and the EU3.  Quite possibly, Rice is hoping to swing George Bush to her side over the weekend before the Cheney plans for war receive another boost from a breakdown in the EU3 effort.  (Remember that the Guardian reports that Condi hasn't decided whether the light-water reactor is a step "too far.")

PREVIEW OF NEXT WEEK:

1. the postponed meeting of the Permanent Five will reveal whether the U. S. plans to make even the pretense of working through the UN; and

2. new Israeli Prime Minister Olmert addresses a joint session of Congress.

1) HCR 391 requiring the Bush administration to come to Congress before dropping bunker-busters now has 34 cosponsors with the latest being:

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 5/11/2006

Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 5/11/2006

Call your House member and encourage them to sign on.

2) S. 333 (no permalink available), the Iran Freedom Support Act sponsored by Rick Santorum, is still in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  The most recent activity on cosponsors is:

Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 5/8/2006

Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 5/8/2006(withdrawn - 5/10/2006)

Call Reid's office and ask how he can support a bill that fellow Democrat Dennis Kucinich called "a stepping stone to war."

Call Reed's office and thank him for withdrawing his name.  (Maybe find out what the heck he was doing last week with putting his name on, then taking it off.)

3)  Wouldn't it be wonderful this weekend, with the possibility that Rice and Cheney are battling over Iran, if a prominent Democrat came out on a Sunday talkshow and lauded the efforts of the EU3 to find a way to peace?  Check on schedules and see if Democrats can weigh in for peace before bombs start dropping.

4)  There's lots of propaganda about Iran being disseminated by those who want to start another war.  If there's some in your local paper's editorials or LTEs, write a letter countering the misinformation.  Make people aware of what an Iran war would mean for their lives, much less for the people of Iran.  Remind people of the parallels between what's being said about Iran and what was said about Iraq prior to that war.

cross-posted at dKos