Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?

The White House can't seem to make up its mind about Iran's nuclear program

  • (2 of 2)

    Despite repeated entreaties from European government officials, the U.S. has so far refused to join the multilateral talks, which center on persuading Iran to shut down its uranium-enrichment work in exchange for a package of economic and political goodies. "You have to have a good cop and a bad cop [on every issue]," Mohamed el-Baradei, director of the IAEA, told TIME. "But they should share the same objective." In this case, however, the U.S. has little interest in getting too involved. It firmly believes that the Iranians have already made up their mind to go nuclear, and no amount of cajoling is going to change that belief. And the U.S. wants to avoid doing anything to bolster the legitimacy of Iran's ruling theocrats. As Rice said while embarking on her trip, "I don't think the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for either the Iranian people or for the region, [which] is going in quite a different direction."

    Iran's refusal to agree to put an end to its uranium-enrichment activities could in time persuade Europe to take the entire matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. hopes to push for a gradual phase-in of multilateral sanctions. Although it is true that Russia and China, as two of Iran's key trading partners (and weapons suppliers), could pose formidable obstacles to passing any kind of resolution, Washington knows it has few good alternatives. For all the recent talk of U.S. commandos secretly staking out potential targets deep inside Iran, many experts question whether military strikes could be assured of taking out all the country's dispersed, well-hidden nuclear facilities. Intelligence on Iran's programs is inadequate, and the White House is mindful of violent reprisals against U.S. forces in Iraq by Iranian-backed militia. Israel, too, is reluctant to resort to the kind of pre-emptive blow it used to take out Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981. A similar strike against Iran would invite retaliation by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hizballah, which can rain missiles on Tel Aviv from its perch in southern Lebanon.

    As a last resort, the Administration continues to hold out hope that regime change will come to Iran before a nuclear bomb does. Barring that, the U.S. may finally have to consider cutting a deal, accepting anything from a nonaggression pact or an end to its long-standing sanctions to Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization. That, of course, may not make the hard-liners in the White House very happy. But as the Bush Administration is slowly learning, dealing with Iran may be one of those cases in which accepting a messy compromise, rather than sticking to a firmly held conviction, is the wisest course of action. --By Daniel Eisenberg. Reported by Elaine Shannon/ Washington, James Graff/ Paris, Helen Gibson/ London and Nahid Siamdoust/Tehran

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. Next Page