Time to Face Reality on Iran

The huffing and puffing in Washington is so strong these days, it could start a gale. High officials warn Iran not to continue work on its nuclear program. Politicians on both sides of the aisle firmly concur. Pundits bellow louder still. Everyone agrees that Iran must be stopped. But how? That's when the silence sets in. No one has a serious plan that has much chance of success.

There are those who claim to have a solution--American military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. For some this is a stand, taken in the full expectation that the policy will never be adopted. In the 1950s some Republicans wanted to outflank the Truman administration, and argued for a military rollback of the Soviet Union. Others genuinely believe it to be possible. But bombing is not a serious option.

At best a strike would set back Iran's program by a few years. But it would inflame public opinion there and unify the nation in its determination to go nuclear. It is a substantial country--with three times the population of Iraq, for example--that has a powerful sense of national pride. And Iran would have many ways of retaliating, especially with 140,000 American troops next door in Iraq.

Sanctions will not work. Iran is the world's second largest oil exporter, with tens of billions of dollars in surplus cash these days. If we have few sticks, we also have few carrots. It's probably worth offering a package of real benefits--mostly as a signal to the Iranian people that we want good relations with them in return for cooperation on nukes--but I have no illusions that it would be accepted. The current regime does not want good relations with the West. It knows that more trade, contact and collaboration only undermine its grip on its society.

American policy toward Iran needs a fundamental rethink. We have a worthy goal: trying to stop Tehran from building nuclear weapons. We have gone about this in a sensible way, using allies, multilateral organizations and international agreements to pressure Tehran. But the policy simply isn't going to work.

Washington and its allies need to come to grips with reality and switch course, coming up with a new set of goals and a path to attain them. Otherwise we risk not just failure, but a very public humiliation and the further erosion of our limited credibility--in Washington, the "West" and the "international community."

The United States should begin the construction of an alliance to contain Iran. Our goals should be to prevent or massively slow down the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, and to frustrate its meddling in the region, support for terrorism and opposition to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is not a best-case outcome, but it has its virtues. The existence of a clear and present danger in Iran will keep the international community galvanized. Already, the Western alliance has been strengthened in response to Iran's belligerence, and cooperation with India, Russia and China seems a stronger possibility than ever before.

Threats usually have the effect of sobering up the neighborhood. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries see that they face a serious problem in Iran, they might recognize that they could use outside allies. American influence in the region could become stronger and be used to push for cooperation on other foreign-policy issues, as well as economic and political reform. Notice how the rise of China has Japan and India moving closer to the United States. The Soviet threat brought Western Europe closer to the United States. It's not inconceivable that a similar dynamic could work in the Middle East.

Properly handled, Iran's threat might even improve the situation in Iraq. One of the grave problems facing Iraq is the rampant and destabilizing Iranian influence in its politics and government. If Iran continues down a nuclear path, politicians in Iraq--of all stripes--will begin to view this as a threat to their national security. It's tough to say that Iran is just a friendly neighbor helping out if it is actively pursuing the military capacity to obliterate you.

This does not mean accepting a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran is many years away from nuclear weapons. Its program is not that sophisticated, and moving to a serious weapons capability isn't that easy, particularly if there is a concerted global effort to slow it down. The regime in Iran is not stable and the fissures in Iran will only grow. Regime change, however, is not going to take place at our will and on our timetable. Outside forces can help. But we will slow change in Iran if we feed the feeling that America is humiliating it. Let us not believe one more time that people in a foreign country will welcome American bombs with sweets and flowers.