The NY Times on Iran’s nuclear ambitions: let’s talk it out

Sometimes there’s nothing more predictable than the editorial page of the New York Times. When it comes to Iran, it’s all Bush’s fault and diplomacy will solve all:

Let us not kid ourselves. Iran's drive to develop nuclear weapons technology would pose an enormous challenge for Washington even if the Bush administration had not tied United States ground forces down in Iraq, squandered its diplomatic credibility over Baghdad's nonexistent nuclear program and pursued a reckless energy policy that has made America the world's most extravagant oil guzzler and helped maximize Iran's petroleum leverage.

It’s astonishing to think that Iran would respond to diplomatic pressure, whether wielded by the Americans, the French, or the Russians. As Hemingway wrote: “it’s pretty to think so.” The mullahs want their bomb and no amount of talking will convince them otherwise. As for the U.S. energy policy, oil is a fungible commodity and the Iranians won’t care if they sell to China or the U.S. If the Times is so concerned about lining the Iranians (or the Saudis, or the Venezuelans) pockets with oil cash, they would support exploration in ANWR. But the religion of environmentalism is a stronger force than even the power of diplomacy, so that’s right out.

What is left is the military option and here’s where the Times gets the issue 180 degrees wrong. It used to be the conventional wisdom in the Middle East that the U.S. didn’t have the stomach for military action; at least not the kind of action that put soldiers in harm’s way. Osama Bin Laden, no less, cited the high-altitude bombings in Chechnya and cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan as evidence that America had no constitution for the fight. Afghanistan and Iraq almost assuredly changed this viewpoint and Iran should think twice with an American base stationed fewer than a thousand miles away.

But those disastrous decisions have left Washington with far fewer plausible and credible tools than it might have had for managing a crisis that very much needs to be managed. The prospect of Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons, even in ten years' time, rattles people and governments, not just in Israel, but across the Middle East and beyond.

Life’s a constant burden when you’re the world’s only superpower. Nowhere in this editorial does the Times consider the economic and military pressure that could be brought to bear by Iran’s neighbor to the north, Russia. (Well, Turkmenistan, but you know what I mean.) But then that would divert attention from the true scapegoat for all things wicked and ugly.

Because Iran has natural uranium supplies and the technological know-how to convert uranium into bomb fuel, the only conceivable long-term solution is to somehow persuade Iranian leaders that they have more to lose from building nuclear weapons than from not building them.

Like a massive strike by NATO forces?

The logical method would be concerted and coercive diplomacy.

Guess not.

And that's where the costly policy mistakes of the past few years come in. Some of the countries Washington most needs to work with are still wary of the Bush administration's intentions, consistency and commitment to multilateralism. And the Iranians, with their increasingly strong hand in Iraq, do not seem to be feeling very coerced.

Hey, you can lead a horse to water…. If Iran develops missile technology, it won’t be capable of reaching Chicago but it will threaten Delhi, Karachi, Bombay, Riyadh, Tbilisi, and perhaps parts of Eastern Europe including Athens, Rome, and Kiev. But when NATO members veto the movement of supplies to protect another member, you know the Iranians are laughing at our multilateral response.

A flurry of reports about possible preparations for airstrikes seems to have alarmed American military and foreign policy specialists more than the Iranians — and rightly so. With no realistic military solutions available, Washington needs to redouble its diplomatic efforts.

Will that be enough? Perhaps a quadrupling will do the trick, with a larger conference table and some of those really nice pastries.

That should include a willingness to talk directly with Iran about the nuclear issue and to take a fresh look at some of the proposals now floating around that might give Iranian leaders a face-saving way to substantially slow their enrichment efforts. Even if such an approach produces no satisfactory agreement, it will help strengthen the basis for joint diplomatic action through the Security Council.

And there you go: the United Nations will save us with a flurry of strongly-worded resolutions written on stern parchment with black ink.