And Iran, Not So Far Away from Nukes (The Hidden David Brooks)

22 Jan 06 Edition

David Brooks breaks down what he sees as the four different schools of thought in regards to the Iranian nuclear situation in Hating the Bomb (full column available to Times Select subscribers). All of which have, in his estimation, one thing in common: "they all stink."

THE PRE-EMPTIONISTS John McCain and most American conservatives believe the situation reeks of Nazi Germany in 1933. An anti-Semitic demagogue is breaking treaties and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The madman means what he says and can't be restrained by normal economic or diplomatic incentives.
[...]
Pre-emptors would work with Europe and the U.N. to step up pressure on Iran, while making it clear the world is willing to do what it takes to halt the nuclear program. As McCain said on "Face the Nation": "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."
[...]
THE SANCTIONISTS Democratic presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have begun hitting the Bush administration from the right. But as Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution notes, this is not just campaign posturing. Centrist Democrats also believe Iranian nukes are unacceptable. Such nukes would set off a regional arms race. They would lead to Cuban missile crisis standoffs in the world's most unstable region. If Iran completes its program, that would completely delegitimize the international system.

The Sanctionists don't rule out a pre-emptive strike, but they don't emphasize it. Instead, they say the U.S. should be directly involved in negotiating with Iran, and the world should quickly impose serious economic sanctions, what Chuck Schumer calls an "economic stranglehold."
[...]
THE REFORMISTS Oddly, the Bush administration finds itself on the cautious, noninterventionist side. Bush officials have been walking away from broad economic sanctions and pre-emptive strikes (while not formally ruling them out). Blustery threats may sound good, they say, but when you are governing, you have to consider the consequences; you have to hold the global coalition together; you have to make sure Iran isn't provoked into really dismantling Iraq.

In all my conversations with senior administration officials, I have never heard them be so cautious about what they can know and tentative about what they can achieve.

Aha! Their teachable moment actually sunk in. And finally:

THE SILENT FATALISTS Mainstream Democrats have been remarkably quiet on this issue. Their main conviction is that American-led military action would be disastrous. This shapes their definition of the problem. A nuclear Iran may not be so cataclysmic, they privately say. Why shouldn't Iran have as much right to the bomb as any other nation? The regime may be nasty, but it's containable with deterrence and engagement.

These liberals argue that if we weren't in Iraq, we'd have a lot more freedom to act against Iran, though you could also say the crisis would be worse if Saddam were still in power.
[...]
This is going to be a lengthy and tortured debate, dividing both parties. We'll probably be engaged in it up to the moment the Iranian bombs are built and fully functioning.

Count me in with the Sanctionists. And speaking of sanctioning, the path to the UN Security Council is starting with some halting steps (via the WaPo):

The United States has been unable to win international support to officially report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, despite two years of diplomatic efforts and defiant new actions by the country to resume uranium enrichment research, according to European diplomats involved in negotiations.
[...]
Russia is concerned that a referral of Iran to the Security Council would result in international sanctions against one of its major trading partners. It has proposed a less formal approach that would allow the Security Council to discuss Iran's case and provide guidelines for compliance with international demands, the diplomats said.
[...]

While several European diplomats said it was possible that Russia and China could be persuaded to support a formal referral to the Security Council, they also said Europeans are increasingly inclined to accept a version of Russia's more flexible proposal.

"The name of the game is to try to line up the international community so the Iranians can't play one against the other," said Francois Heisbourg, who heads the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research.

Pursuing an informal path would give Iran more time to respond to questions from U.N. inspectors and to explore a possible deal in which it would enrich uranium in Russia rather than at home. If Iran provides the cooperation that inspectors say they need and holds off on any additional research until the IAEA meets again in March, it could greatly affect the council's response, according to Western diplomats familiar with the negotiations.