WEEKLY MEDIA WRAP-UP: IRAN -- AMERICAN INTERVENTION?;

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000807 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/WE, INR, R E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC PREL KPAO FR SUBJECT: WEEKLY MEDIA WRAP-UP: IRAN -- AMERICAN INTERVENTION?; BAGHDAD CONFERENCE; SARKOZY'S FOREIGN POLICY PRESS CONFERENCE; AIRBUS RESTRUCTURING. MARCH 2, 2007. PARIS 00000807 001.2 OF 003 Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Iran and Iraq dominated French media coverage, with editorialists playing up stories about the possibilities of an eventual American intervention in Iran (although all coming to the conclusion that intervention was unlikely for the moment). Journalists also emphasized what they termed a "shift" in U.S. policy in regard to Syrian and Iranian participation in the upcoming Baghdad Conference. French presidential campaign news emphasized the perceived need for center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy to distance himself from U.S. policy. Airbus job cuts dominated the economic news, even in a week with a major stock market correction. End Summary. -------------- IRAN: POSSIBLE "AMERICAN INTERVENTION" -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The weekend edition of right-of-center Le Figaro (February 25) suggested that "Washington seems to be hedging its bets, announcing the recent deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Gulf while saying it has no bellicose intentions... In spite of this, Washington appears to remain committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis." ¶3. (SBU) Bruno Tertrais, researcher at the Foundation for Strategic studies in Paris gave an interview to the weekly Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche (February 25) in which he insisted that "Tehran is far from having halted or slowed its nuclear program... It could have the bomb by the end of 2008." Asked about the possibility of a military intervention, Tertrais cautioned, "For now it is just a rumor... But if there were to be an intervention, it would not take place before the Iranian nuclear program was more advanced and American redeployment has begun." ¶4. (SBU) On February 26, left-of-center Le Monde reported that "no one in Iran talks publicly about the possibility of an American intervention... but in private Iranians are asking themselves the question... [For Iranians] to criticize the way the nuclear issue is being handled by the Iranian authorities is risky." ¶5. (SBU) In the free morning paper Matin Plus (February 27),Claire Trean charged that "like the Iranians, the American president is blowing hot and cold and letting doubt set in as to his real intentions... For the time being, President Bush is trying to look menacing. The U.S. has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf and its British ally has doubled its troops in the region. As for Israel, it is simply waiting for a green light to bomb Iranian nuclear installations." ¶6. (SBU) Catholic La Croix's Jean-Christophe Ploquin wrote (February 27) that "While the military option is under discussion, Washington is continuing its diplomatic ballet with the aim to push forward a resolution at the UNSC for sanctions against Iran... A meeting in London yesterday... did not lead to any significant breakthrough on the issue." ¶7. (SBU) Left-of-center Le Monde reported (February 27) the launching of a rocket into space by Tehran "as the next phase in the Iranian program to place satellites" and on state-run France Inter radio, Dominique Bromberger wondered if the "Iranian government really had to proceed with this launch just when the issue of the nuclear program is being debated at the UNSC?" ¶8. (SBU) On February 28, free morning newspaper Matin Plus noted that "in between the U.S.'s coercive stance and Russia and China's more lenient one, France seems to have a hard time finding its place and making its voice heard. Rumors of parallel negotiations between France and Iran have not contributed to clarifying the situation." -------------- BAGHDAD CONFERENCE -------------- ¶9. (SBU) On February 28, right-of-center Le Figaro noted that the government in Baghdad had "called for an international conference on security to be held in Baghdad. The conference would bring together the five permanent members of the UNSC as well as Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran. The U.S. has confirmed that it would participate in such a meeting..." ¶10. (SBU) March 1, left-of-center Le Monde reported that "the PARIS 00000807 002.2 OF 003 Baghdad conference aims at discussing means to ensure political stability in Iraq, [and] is also an open door for Washington to be able to talk to Syria and Iran..." On March 1, a small piece in right-of-center Le Figaro noted that while France has confirmed its participation in an international conference in Baghdad at the ambassadorial level, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not given a definite answer regarding a second conference in a neighboring country to Iraq at the ministerial level. ¶11. (SBU) On March 1, right-of-center Le Figaro's Washington correspondent Philippe Gelie wrote that "180-degree turns are a rarity under the presidency of George W. Bush... But by announcing that the U.S. is ready to sit at the same table as Iran, American diplomacy is evidently making a radical shift after weeks of verbal and military escalation. But the emphasis on a 'new diplomatic offensive' is in fact part of a global strategy as opposed to a break from it... The last time that a meeting at the ministerial meeting took place was in 2004 in Sharm el Sheikh and the context was different because Tehran was not enriching uranium or on the hot seat for fueling the insurgency in Iraq. Damascus was not being accused of political assassinations in Lebanon... Condoleezza Rice almost made an act of contrition before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying that the decision to take part in the conference is in keeping with the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Report... The aim is clearly to butter up Congress... before it decides on increasing the war budget by 100 billion dollars... What has changed from the point of view of the White House... is that the U.S. believes that it has sufficiently weakened president Ahmadinejad to be able to speak with Iran from a position of force." ¶12. (SBU) Bernard Guetta (March 1) commented on state-run France Inter radio that the "U.S. is getting down to business." "It took less than three months for the resounding 'no' to the recommendations of the Barker-Hamilton Report to turn into a 'yes.' Slowly, and with small steps, the U.S. is opening to Iran... The Baghdad Conference, called for by Iraq (which is to say the White House) will draw a crowd... All eyes will be on Washington and Tehran... Why did the White House start out by saying no? The first explanation may be that no government likes to admit that it has adopted the wrong policy... especially in the case of George Bush, who suffered a defeat during the mid-term elections. But the other explanation may be that the U.S. wanted to give itself time to go into the discussions from a position of strength... While chaos continues to reign in Iraq, politically speaking the U.S. position is a bit better than in December. Now it is time to get down to business." ¶13. (SBU) Jean-Christophe Ploquin's editorial (March 1) in Catholic La Croix entitled "Dialogue and Threat" characterized the U.S. decision to take part in the Baghdad Conference as "better late than never." Ploquin wrote that "for the past three years, France has been suggesting that an international conference on Iraq be organized... the call for a conference in Baghdad is a sign that diplomatic skill is back in Washington... The Bush Administration has taken the reins once again... While it is flexing its muscles, it is also avoiding the temptation to go it alone... In this context it is impossible to say if George W. Bush could launch an offensive on Iran. The answer to the question lies in Tehran. Isolated diplomatically, strangled economically, threatened militarily, little by little Iran's options are dwindling." -------------- SARKOZY DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM THE U.S. -------------- ¶14. (SBU) On March 1, right-of-center Le Figaro said that "yesterday Nicolas Sarkozy presented his vision of the world." Addressing the foreign press corps based in Paris, UMP presidential candidate Sarkozy insisted that the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, "but demonstrated like-mindedness with Washington on the issue of nuclear proliferation: 'the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons is unacceptable. It would open the door to an arms race and it would be a constant threat for Israel and southeastern Europe. I believe that there should be no hesitations to toughen sanctions because I think that they can be effective.'" On the subject of integrating Turkey to the EU, Sarkozy's stance was portrayed as opposed to that of the U.S.: "'George Bush is very keen to see Turkey integrated in Europe, for me the answer is no! Turkey is not a European country.'" Sarkozy also emphasized that "'Our American friends...' should leave France and Europe 'free' because 'friendship is not submission.'" ¶15. (SBU) Left-wing Liberation wrote March 1 that "Sarkozy has put some water in his American wine... 'The Franco-American friendship is necessary for the balance of the world... it is profound, sincere PARIS 00000807 003.2 OF 003 and indissoluble.' Sarkozy had said in Washington that France is not 'above reproach' in its relationship with the U.S.... Yesterday Sarkozy qualified the military intervention in Iraq as an 'historical mistake...' and warned against NATO 'evolving, as the Americans would like, to become a competing organization to the UN...'" -------------- AIRBUS RESTRUCTURING -------------- ¶16. (SBU) On February 26, left-of-center Le Monde noted that during the "informal meeting in Blaesheim... President Chirac and Chancellor Merkel put the accent on their common interest in lifting Airbus out of its current crisis." For right-of-center Le Figaro Economie, "Calming things down was obviously the principal objective of the Chirac Merkel meeting." ¶17. (SBU) Right-of-center Le Figaro Economie (February 28) outlined the key points of the "Power 8" plan. In France, two factories would be expected to be sold. The daily underscored that the "hour of truth has come for Airbus and its 57,000 employees." The February 28 editorial in economic daily Les Echos called the Airbus crisis a "permanent psychodrama... Even if it is well implemented, the Power 8 plan will not solve all of the problems at Airbus if the company cannot protect itself from the nationalistic tendencies of its shareholders... The company today needs investors who are committed to seeing it succeed... This is the only way that EADS will be able to break through on the American military market." ¶18. (SBU) On March 1, left-of-center Le Monde's headline story said that "France has been the hardest hit with 4300 jobs cut, 1100 of which are at the headquarters in Toulouse... Airbus is considering subcontracting more, like Boeing does... 70 percent of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is subcontracted out. Airbus would like to increase the subcontracting on the A350 from 30 percent to 50 percent." ¶19. (SBU) Left-wing Liberations' editorial by Gerard Dupuy on March 1 noted that "Airbus will not be able to survive if it does not adapt to the cruel rules of business... This means 10,000 job cuts... Arch-rival Boeing was for a time thrown off course by its European competitor and decided on a vast overhaul that is beginning to bear fruit. Turning to subcontractors means having subcontractors that are capable of doing the job. The Americans have this; the Europeans have yet to find it." WHITE