Today in the New York Times: <blockquote>Even before the announcement, news accounts in recent days of what airstrikes could look like, appearing in The New Yorker, The Washington Post and elsewhere, served as what one senior official called "a reminder" to the Iranian government and to Europe, Russia and China "of where this could go one day." (DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMIT, "At the White House, Engaging Iran With Words Over Action," <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12policy.html>)</blockquote>
That pretty much sounds like a case of leaks that the administration prompted, seeking to swagger since it's not possible to take an immediate, decisive military action.
Blandishing the idea of using tactical nukes, etc. may be also meant to motivate Moscow and Beijing to get on the path to sanctioning Iran, since sanctions would look like a lesser evil compare to nukes:
<blockquote>Others suggest that the vague drumbeat of talk about military action may be less aimed at Tehran than at China and Russia — two countries that have said they oppose even the threat of economic sanctions against Iran, much less threats to set back the Iranian program by obliterating its facilities.
"In Tehran, the threat of military action is double-edged," said Ashton B. Carter, a Harvard security expert who worked on nuclear issues in the Clinton administration. "It may scare the leadership, but it could also cause people to rally around the leadership. Where it's most effective is showing the Russians and the Chinese that we are serious about stopping this program."
(DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMIT, "At the White House, Engaging Iran With Words Over Action," <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/world/middleeast/12policy.html>)</blockquote>
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>