By Chip Cummins
Source:
July 7, 2010

The United Arab Emirates moved Wednesday to contain fallout from comments by its U.S. ambassador, who appeared earlier in the week to endorse a military strike against neighbor Iran, a position at odds with the country’s public stance.

While a staunch U.S. ally, the U.A.E. has also maintained cordial ties with Tehran, a big trading partner across the Persian Gulf. It and other Arab states in the region have long tempered their criticism of Tehran and have publicly called for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear standoff with the international community.

But at a forum organized by the Aspen Institute in Colorado on Tuesday, Youssef al-Otaiba, the U.A.E.’s Washington envoy, appeared to bluntly support a military attack against a nuclear-armed Iran. (See .)

Tehran reacted angrily Wednesday. Kazim Jalili, a spokesman for Iran’s parliamentarian committee for national security and foreign policy, lashed out at the ambassador’s comments, telling reporters he hopes the U.A.E. “corrects them and comments on them,” according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news service.

“Making such crude and harsh remarks is not in the interest of Islamic countries,” he said.

The U.A.E.’s assistant foreign minister for political affairs, Tareq al-Haidan, meanwhile, said Mr. Otaiba’s comments were taken out of context and “are not precise,” according to a statement by the country’s official news service released Wednesday.

“The U.A.E. totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue,” Mr. Haidan said, adding: “The U.A.E., at the same time, believes in the need of keeping the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons.”

Some of Mr. Otaiba’s comments were first reported in The Washington Times and on the website of The Atlantic, whose correspondent moderated the session. An audio-cast of the conversation was distributed by the festival’s organizers on Wednesday.

Many Western and Arab states suspect Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, while Tehran maintains its program is peaceful. U.S. officials have said a military strike against Iran should be a last resort. Israeli officials, however, have suggested they would attack to prevent Tehran getting a nuclear weapon.

At one point during the session, Mr. Otaiba suggested the U.A.E. would support such an Israeli strike.

“A military attack on Iran, by whomever, would be a disaster,” he said. “But Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”

Later, he acknowledged political consequences across the Mideast of a military attack. But he suggested they would be worth it, if a strike deprived Iran of a nuclear-weapons capability.

“There will be consequences, and there will be a backlash and there will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country,” he said. “That is going to happen no matter what.”

“But if you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,’ my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.”

—Farnaz Fassihi contributed to this article.