[The Telegraph, U.K.]

Corriere della Sera, Italy

'World War III': Bush's Words of Fire

"Without wanting to subscribe to Bush's alarmist calculations, it's clear that if Iran obtained The Bomb, the threat of war - and of nuclear war - would grow."

By Franco Venturini

Translated By Adrian Trevisan

October 19, 2007

Italy - Corriere della Sera - Original Article (Italian)

In answer to Vladimir Putin, who the day before had declared military action against Iran “unacceptable,” George Bush said that an Iran with nuclear arms could lead to World War III. The escalation of words has reached the level of a Red Alert, confirming that Washington and Moscow are on a collision course as the possibility of a U.S. attack against Iran's nuclear facilities draws closer.

[Editor's Note: At a press conference on October 17, President Bush said: We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon WATCH  - Comments about World War III at 00:21:50].

In choosing to use an expression that until yesterday belonged to THE literature of political fiction, Bush's willingness to dramatize the Iranian crisis to maximum effect is clear - up to and including preparing an absolute justification for the still-hypothetical attack: By making it a limited war, a general war would be avoided. Yes - this is an answer to Russia - but it's also a White House signal to the European allies and others who are called on to demonstrate wisdom in the Middle East; from Turkey, who is ready to strike at the Kurds on Iraqi territory, to the Palestinians and Israelis, who aren't making preparations for the Annapolis Peace Conference any easier.

For Bush, this is a poor time to play with fire because the real fire is just around the corner. And its names are Iran, Ahmadinejad, and nuclear weapons. But by using words like a baseball bat, the American President wants to put before the world the elements that make the Iranian crisis unique when compared, for example, with the North Korean one.

First, there is the security of Israel. The emergence of another nuclear power in the region would be seen as a challenge to Jerusalem. But if at the head of this aspiring power is a President who wants to transfer the Jewish state to Alaska and who doesn't recognize the Holocaust, the danger is such that the guarantee clause that has always tied Israel to America would be invoked. And with the historic burden we carry on our shoulders, even the Europeans might look the other way. Putin says that Iran has every right to have access to civilian nuclear power, which Teheran claims it wants. True, treaties establish this right and at the U.N., [French President] Sarkozy has just reminded us. But if the suspect [Iran] is responsible for 18 years of deception, and if Ahmadinejad speaks as though he wants to be attacked (he may really want this in terms of a short-sighted calculation of personal power), then the space for negotiation inevitably decreases. Which is all the more reason that before leaving the White House, Bush wouldn't regret making others forget that the Iranian threat received a powerful boost from the Iraq disaster.

Secondly, there is the uncontrolled proliferation. An Iran with The Bomb would lead the Sunni Gulf monarchies to imitate Tehran to cover their backs, and give a green light to others, perhaps Egypt, Syria maybe, and perhaps Turkey. The spread of nuclear weapons could no longer be curbed, nor could one prevent The Bomb for landing in the hands of terrorist organizations. Without wanting to subscribe to Bush's alarmist calculations, it's clear that the threat of war - and of nuclear war - would grow.

Then there's a third argument, of which Bush's United States doesn't speak. By pushing the nuclear accelerator and promoting ambiguity about his real intentions, Ahmadinejad wants Iran to win recognition as a major regional power. America cannot allow this, because it would reduce its own influence, with the attendant risk to its energy supply. And in such an event, a superpower knows what to do.

Is a small war to prevent a great war really inevitable and would it be impossible to negotiate permanent and stringent controls on the civilian nature of Iranian nuclear power? Bush hasn't said so, but those who need to understand this - Ahmadinejad first and foremost - will certainly understand.

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION