Attacks trigger differing views on makeup of anti-terror coalition

By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration's attempt to forge a global anti-terrorism coalition is producing sharp disagreements over how far U.S. officials should look beyond democratic allies in its search for partners.

There also are fissures among officials over the timing of U.S. military action once the administration determines who was responsible for the twin terrorist attacks on Tuesday.

A White House official said Thursday the administration wants the coalition to be in place before the United States retaliates for the attacks, even if it means a delay of weeks or months before action is taken.

But a senior official, speaking privately, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to punish the perpetrators as soon as they are identified, irrespective of how far along the coalition building process is.

On Thursday, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the creation of an anti-terror front, Richard Haass, a top State Department planning aide, floated the idea of a role for longtime adversary Iran during an interview with BBC.

"I would not rule out the possibility at the moment of any country necessarily working with the United States and the international community," Haass said when asked about Iran.

He noted that Iran had pleased U.S. officials with a a very positive statement in response to the attacks.

In theory at least, Iran could provide useful information to the United States if there is substance to the U.S. suspicions that Afghan-based Osama bin Laden and his allies were responsible for the attacks.

Iran shares a long border with Afghanistan and has had acrimonious relations with the Taliban militia that runs the country.

But another senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it would be just speculation to suggest Iran could be counted on to take action against terrorism. Iran has been listed by the State Department as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism for many years.

Another official, also speaking privately, said signing up Iran and other U.S. adversaries in the proposed coalition would ensure its ineffectiveness because these countries would attempt to block decisive action.

James Philips, a Middle East expert at the Heritage Foundation, said he would be "extremely suspicious" that countries such as Iran and Libya could make a positive contribution to the proposed coalition.

Phillips said he might change his mind "if they would be willing to offer bases. That would be proof they would be serious in helping us stage possible air strikes," he said.

Lee Feinstein, a top State Department aide in the Clinton administration, said a diverse coalition that includes Muslim countries would be more viable politically than one limited largely to Western allies.

He said Iran might be a helpful addition so long as unanimity is not a prerequisite for coalition action. He added that he does "not want to be in a position of dropping the legitimate concerns the administration has about Iranian actions in the Middle East."

APNP-09-15-01 1523CDT