Iran

The biggest national security conundrum is not over approaches to fighting terrorism, but over how the U.S. should deal with rogue countries that have or are actively seeking nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are, of course, at the top of that list. So we were pleased that Sen. John Edwards took a stab at formulating a policy for Iran, but can’t say we were terribly pleased with the result.

The biggest national security conundrum is not over approaches to fighting terrorism, but over how the U.S. should deal with rogue countries that have or are actively seeking nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are, of course, at the top of that list. So we were pleased that Sen. John Edwards took a stab at formulating a policy for Iran, but can’t say we were terribly pleased with the result.

According to The Washington Post last week, Sen. Edwards said, “A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others.” So far, excellent.

However, Sen. Edwards said, “a John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making.” He added, “If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us.”

Not quite. First, there is no indication that the Iranians are interested in the “grand bargain” Sen. Edwards proposes. The Iranians do not, in fact, want nuclear power any more than the North Koreans did when President Clinton offered Kim Jong Il the exact same bargain. The mullahs have been very clear and very adamant about their intention to acquire nuclear weapons and their belief that they are entitled to. So much so that the Iranian Defense Minister announced Iran’s intention to preemptively strike Israel if Iran believes Israel will strike Iranian nuclear sites.

Second, our “European friends” already stand with us on this – the Bush administration turned to a British/French/German/Russian quartet in hopes of avoiding some of the problems of our Iraq policy. The Europeans, having reluctantly concluded that Iranian nuclear capability poses a threat to them, are currently trying the carrot and are in the process of failing. Ditto the IAEA and the Security Council.

And third, if it is a bluff, by the time we find out, Iran will have nuclear weapons. That, as Sen. Edwards rightly said, is unacceptable.

We believe Iran intends to have nuclear weapons, just as North Korea has and Iraq intended. We also believe if Iran wanted to reassure the civilized world that it has no intention of becoming a nuclear weapons state, it has the means to do so. The fact that it chooses instead to blatantly cheat on the IAEA, threaten Israel, and announce itself “entitled” to nukes is a sign that it believes in continued American and allied forbearance.

But if Kerry/Edwards is too willing to offer forbearance, we’re still waiting to hear a policy from the Bush Administration beyond reliance on the allies and hope against experience.