The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal is appropriately dubious about the prospects for Eurocrats and America to be able to buy off Iran's mullahs and their desire for nukes.
Perhaps Tehran's good faith may yet be purchased with (Airbus) planes and WTO membership. But what guarantee is there that the arrangement will last? As we have seen with North Korea, rogue regimes rarely stay bribed, and the most effective way Tehran could up the ante is to continue to develop its nuclear options. At that point, a U.S. military strike would be too risky to contemplate. We also doubt the Iranians would be stopped by a hostile Security Council resolution, even if the Europeans could be brought to support it. "What's the point?" they would say--and they'd be right.Posted by Alan at March 1, 2005 05:29 AMWhat's needed now is some genuine realism on Iran. The Europeans are free to believe that a nuclear Iran is a safer bet for them--a "status quo" power, as they like to say. As for the fact that Western Europe may soon be in range of nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles--that's their business, as we like to say.
But the U.S., with its stake in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, its opposition to terrorist groups that Iran sponsors, and its commitment to spreading democracy in the Mideast, cannot be indifferent to a nuclear Iran. The problem is not that we have yet to hit on the right mix of carrots and sticks to cajole Iran into responsibility. The problem is that Iran's theocratic regime is by its nature inimical to American interests; any move that extends its life also prolongs the hazard it poses to the U.S.
That does not mean the U.S. should drop diplomacy and take up arms against Iran tomorrow. It does mean that if any headway is to be made, the Administration needs to be absolutely clear about Iran's intentions and Europe's motives. Signing on to Europe's strategy offers one certain outcome: a nuclear Iran.