On Jan. 26 President George Bush was asked by a journalist if he had authorized a “kill or capture” policy against Iranians inside Iraq. The President replied:

“It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goals or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them. Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense.”

Before the president’s reply, the White House national security officials had confirmed that last year the president had given the order for US forces to target Iranian intelligence officials and Revolutionary Guards, working with the many Shiite militias inside Iraq. This was about far more than protecting American servicemen. Twice this month the president has accused Iran of providing the latest military technology for ambushes on US servicemen — which I am sure it has and still does.

Last month US troops detained some Iranian officials in Baghdad and then in Arbil in the north. The US claimed they were trained agents. The Iraqi government was furious and said the men had been invited in by Baghdad. It is a fact that the government of Nouri Al-Maliki, which is Shiite-dominated, has close ties with Iran.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, Robert Gates, the new secretary of defense, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the departing American ambassador to Iraq, have all made a point of criticizing Iran since the turn of the year. They have accused that country of seeking to destabilize Iraq and attempting to frustrate US policies in the region by, for example, supporting Hezbollah — one of the most powerful forces in the entire area — and Hamas. They also strongly condemned its nuclear policies.

Tehran is doing nothing to reduce the tension with the United States. On Jan. 15 it announced that it was stepping up its uranium enrichment program, which experts believe will be a cover for providing highly enriched uranium, the fissile material required to construct an atomic weapon. The UN has been told by Tehran that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges this month at its facility in Natanz to enrich uranium.

The United States has deployed a huge naval force in the region. Last December the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group sailed into the Gulf. It is being joined by the USS John C. Stennis carrier group. It is worth noting that not since the US-led invasion of Iraq has the United States had two carrier groups there. Washington has also sent out an air defense battalion equipped with Patriot missile batteries. They are supposed to offer comfort and support to America’s allies in the Middle East.

Did clever people advice the White House how America’s actions might be viewed in Tehran? I think not. Was it really only a few weeks ago that the Iraq Study Group was suggesting America should be talking to Iran on the grounds that you need to talk to your opponents as well as your friends? Sailing carrier groups — and flying their bombers — off the Iranian coast will strike most Iranians as being highly provocative.

Dr. Ali Ansari, an expert on Iran at St Andrews University, Scotland, whose work I admire, wrote in The Independent on Sunday (Dec. 10) that there is no indication in the Study Group Report:

“... why the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad should have any interest in helping the United States. After all, the view from Tehran is looking rather good. Iran has never looked so imperious, and indeed has much to be grateful to the Bush administration for, but if regime change and the thread of military strikes are still on the cards, then the suggestion that the US would like some help, may strike some in Tehran as perverse.”

It is an unsettling thought that there are clearly some in key positions in the Bush administration who would support a conflict with Iran before their president leaves the White House in under two years. Safeguarding Israel is the key priority for such people, and with Saddam Hussein dead, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had taken over as the big threat to the Jewish state. Could not Iran be taught a lesson they ask to make up for the failures in Iraq? They would like to see Iran’s nuclear instillations gravely damaged, if not completely destroyed, by America or Israel or by collusion between the two. There will always be voices saying this is feasible, although I have my doubts that it could be done.

I agree with Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who daily surveys the Iranian scene, that a strike on Iran would have “catastrophic consequences”. My fears are that President Bush wants a “success” at all costs and President Ahmadinejad is unstable and irrational.