The Associated Press reports, in an article that's currently being given top billing by Drudge, that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told CNN he has ruled out a preemptive strike against Iran's possible nuclear facilities.

Sharon Rules Out Attacking Iran Over Nukes

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel will not mount a unilateral attack aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capability, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday in a CNN-TV interview.

Sharon said he did not see "unilateral action" as an option. He said Israel did not need to lead the way on the Iran nuclear weapons issue, calling for an international coalition to deal with it.

The only problem is, reading the actual transcript of the interview in question, Sharon doesn't actually say any of that!

Here's the relevant portion of the interview:

BLITZER: A lot of our viewers will remember in 1981, when Israel unilaterally bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Are you considering -- let me rephrase the question, at what point would Israel take unilateral military action to try to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb?

SHARON: I remember, of course, that raid in Iraq and was always proud to [have been] a member of the inner Cabinet ... I think that decision then has saved many lives. Just imagine what could have happened if Iraq would have had -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- would have had atomic weapons.

I think that here the situation is different. And the problem is different and much wider. And I think that here it should be a coalition of democracies who believe in the danger, led by United States, in order to put pressure upon Iran.

BLITZER: Have you ruled out a unilateral military strike against Iran?

SHARON: We don't think that's what we have to do. We're not going to solve the problems for nobody. And then the thing that -- I'd say the danger is so great that it should be an international effort. Altogether, I would like you to know that Israel is not leading the struggle. Of course we exchange intelligence. We exchange views, we discuss these issues, but it's not that we are planning any military attack on Iran.

Somehow, that bundle of equivocation got mangled by the AP into "Sharon rules out attacking Iran" and "Israel will not mount a unilateral attack."

Let's review what Sharon actually said, shall we?

1. "We don't think that's what we have to do" is a speculative assertion of fact; it is by no means a blanket statement that any future option has been ruled out. What you "think" can be wrong. Just because you "think" you won't have to do something, doesn't mean it will not happen or that it's no longer an option.

2. "We're not going to solve the problems for nobody" is somewhat more forceful, but in addition to being gramatically incorrect, it's also quite vague. What, precisely, are "the problems"? Just how solid is the level of certainty that's supposed to be implied by the phrase "not going to"? One can draw various inferences, but this statement certainly isn't an effective disavowal of any and all possible future preemptive options.

3. "[I]t's not that we are planning any military attack on Iran" is not an assertion that anything has been taken off the table by any means. He's merely saying that it isn't being planned, not that it's no longer an option or that it will not happen. That's a HUGE distinction.

Bottom line, if Ariel Sharon had wanted to say, "We are taking the preemptive option off the table," he could have. But HE DIDN'T. And yet the AP is reporting that he did!

Also, nowhere in the interview transcript does the phrase "unilateral action" appear, and the only phrase that comes close -- "unilteral military action" -- was spoken by Wolf Blitzer, not Ariel Sharon. Sharon never even uttered the word "unilateral," according to the transcript. So what is the justification for the first sentence of the second paragraph in the AP article? It reads: "Sharon said he did not see 'unilateral action' as an option." Sharon said no such thing!

Finally, Sharon also didn't say anything about what Israel "needs" to do, talking only about what "should" happen internationally. He was silent on the question of what Israel would "need" to do if the things that "should" happen, don't happen. Another potentially significant distinction.

Unless the CNN transcript is badly flawed or I am really missing something, I'd have to conclude that this AP article is badly, badly flawed.

[Cross-posted at BrendanLoy.com]