Over at The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan has an interesting take on Iran's announcement that it will build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. In Andrew Sullivan's view, the decision by Iran (actually, by its hardline Revolutionary Guards, who appear to be increasingly in control of the country), means that the country "now all but completely isolated itself from international support."With China, Russia and India backing Friday's IAEA admonishment of Iran, the mullahs have thrown a tantrum. I tend to share Juan Cole's skepticism that Putin or Hu will ever agree to real sanctions on Iran, but recent events have certainly made real international sanctions more likely. Indeed, if you support such sanctions, you will surely have to admit that Obama's steady diplomacy, his work with the Chinese and Russians, and his willingness to let France and Germany take the lead at times has isolated Iran more successfully than Bush's sabre-rattling ever did.Perhaps that latter statement is true, and certainly the Bush Administration's efforts at restraining Iran by calling it "evil" got absolutely nowhere. To the contrary, Iran moved ahead steadily on its nuclear program during Bush's 8 years in office, just as North Korea moved ahead with its own nuclear activities. The question now is whether a different approach, one focused more on diplomacy, might work better than Bush's over-the-top rhetoric, threats, and sporadic/half-hearted stabs at diplomacy. Andrew Sullivan believes this is the case, that Obama's "steady diplomacy" is slowly but surely making progress on this issue. I'm hopeful but skeptical. The bottom line is that, to date, the "international community" (such as it is) has barely been able to condemn Iran's nuclear activities, let alone impose "crippling sanctions" or whatever the buzz phrase of the day happens to be.
Meanwhile, the ultra-hardliners, having largely succeeded in beating back the reform movement of last summer, appear to be in charge in Tehran, meaning that it's unlikely they'll back down on the nuclear issue unless forced to do so. But how? Honestly, I don't see much hope here. In the end, it seems to me, either of two things are going to happen: 1) the "international community" will fail to restrain Iran and, at some point, that country will develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (this could have major repercussions in the Middle East, for nuclear non-proliferation efforts, etc.); or 2) the "international community" will somehow manage to stop (or at least substantially slow) Iran, probably through a combination of "crippling sanctions" and threats - possibly even the actual use - of force. Neither of these are ideal outcomes, but of the two, I'd take "manage to stop (or at least substantially slow) Iran" through sanctions and/or threats of force. In the end, though, if nothing else works, it's going to come down to an extremely difficult but basic question: is the "least bad" option to let Iran get nuclear weapons or to launch a serious military campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure? Let's just hope that Obama's diplomacy - backed up by "crippling sanctions" if need be - bears fruit before we have to answer that question.
