Strange.  My views on the subject track your a great deal, yet I can't help but feel much of this piece is just scare-mongering.  For instance, you write It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes , "It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes only...," but you fail to explain this.  It has apparently reached the status of an unquestionable truth, like "the media is liberal," "democrats are weak on defense," or "Iraq has weapons of mass distruction."

Additionally, you say "The dangers of an Iranian bomb are clear."  But are they?  Isn't the possibility that other countries would build a bomb there anyway?  Iran's conventional force far outweighs Saudi Arabia's, so the Saudis should already have an earnest desire for a balancing weapon.  As for Egypt, they are in no way directly threatened by Iran.  Their only competition would be for influence in the region, in which case building a bomb should have pretty much as much value to then whether or not Iran has one.  Anyway, Egypt has lived next to a high-strung nuclear power for decades without building a bomb. 

As for the "fatal blow" to non-proliferation, I think you might be closing that door a bit late.  I suspect the fatal blow was struck by Israel, or India, or Pakistan, or North Korea, or A.Q. Khan.  Hostility toward Iran won't salvage that.   

Also, you say that Iran having the bomb "could deter the United States and others from responding to Iranian aggression."  Setting asside the fact that Iran has not launched a war in a century, why would that be.  The imbalance between US and Iranian conventional forces is so extreme that we would not need to fully commit to block an Iranian invasion of any country.  For instance, we were able to do significant damage to Iran in the 1980's war simply by giving Iraq satellite data.  Also, we fought a low-level war with the USSR for decades, how could be possibly be prevented from making any similar necessary moves against Iran?

And, of course, you destroy your credibility by asking, "do we really want to run the risk of them passing nuclear materials or even a weapon on to al Qaeda?"  The idea that the world's leading Shi'ite nation would hand its most powerful weapon over to a fringe group that has sworn death to all Shi'ites is absurd on the face of it.  Any reference to such a thing without a massive explanation of why such a possibility is credible is scare-mongering, pure and simple.

As for your talk of sanctions, you have not explained how to make them credible without the support of the entire world.  You have tacitly accepted that without Chinese and Indian support, we cannot cut off Iran's oil sales.  So we are left with ending US and European investment in Iran.  But Iran has done fine without US investment for 25 years.  So you are just advocating that Europe alone cut off investment.  But Iran has its own petroleum sector, and the Chinese industry is growing fast.  With Chinese, and especially with Russian help, Iran could do just fine without European investment.  So your sanctions look pretty weak.

All in all, you seem to be trying to scare your readers, but without offering any real solutions.  

Offer them a better deal: full membership of WTO, end to US sanctions, US opposition for any Israeli racist settler colonies beyond the 1967 borders (i.e. removal of the 100,000s of thousands of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem), forcing Israel into the non-proliferation regime, abandoning the idea of permanent bases in Iraq, long term possible entry for Iran into the European Economic Area/ EU customs union like Turkey, a settlement of pre-1979 claims and full diplomatic relations, in return for Iran abandoning neuclear research and permanent full on-site inspections etc by US-EU teams with gendarm powers (reciprocated, if they like, with Iranian investigations of the nuclear sites of the EU non-nuclear powers e.g. Germany).

So far the EU and US have offered little. They are not serious about making the sort of political and economic offer the Iranians would consider worthwhile to abandon their nuclear ambitions. But the US prefers forcing the palestinians to accept Israeli settlements, maintaining Israeli regional hegemony, and lack of integration of Iran into existing forms of global governance to really trying to reduce Iran's incentives to get the bomb. Hence the farce of meaningless and ambiguous "expanded economic and diplomatic ties", the rush to say "diplomacy had run its course", and the steps, slow or quick, to war.

Sure they can. Israel is entirely dependent on US and EU policies to maintain its colonisation of the Palestinians. Eisenhower forced that 'sovereign state' to abandon its settler colonies once. You could make the same point with Carter. The US can certainly do it again, if its serious about trying to reduce Iran's incentives to get the bomb.

This is an odd claim to make in a post about Iran. It's a sovereign state too, and US and EU policies, including policies toward other states, are trying to affect its behaviour.

Nice piece Ivo. this problem has us in a pickle, no doubt about it and your article is a thoughtful contribution. However, I don't think you can rule out a strike. all options must remain on the table, if only to give us leverage.
On the terrorism issue, i think the point is not necessarily that Iran will deliberately transfer but could do so because of theft and corruption, etc. so Ivo's point is still valid.

Ivo:  Ahmadinejad has the West by the balls.

Thanks to Bush's Iraqi debacle, the US can't threaten an invasion and nothing else counts: Sanctions and even bombs will only make the nut jobs in Tehran even stronger.

Comparing oil-rich Iran to impoverished NK is not being serious.  Like China will endanger its prosperity so that Iran doesn't get a nuke (which it will anyway) while Pakistan got one with only a slap on the wrist from Washington. Yes, sure.

Bush put Ahmadinejad in the driver's seat,  but people like Ivo want to believe we can shove him to the back of the bus by talking tough and slapping sanctions. Dream on!

While Iran won't cave in? Easy.  It's surrounded by Pakistan, Russia, the US on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq) and, within a short range, Israel, all of which have nukes.

PS  a technical mistake you made you might want to correct. YOu say it's Iran's choice to reintegrate the international community and preserve its security, etc.  Not true. The US refuses to grant Iran any security guarantees (even if it denukes) short of regime change.  The US still calls Iran part of the axis of evil. So would you care to clarify your statement?

Has it occurred to you that the US persistent refusal to normalize relations with Iran might be the main source of its paranoia? 

I'd like to commend Weasel on his thorough going over of Daalder and Gordon's typically myopic and dangerous take on the Iranian nuclear question. The most significant thing revealed about Daalder and which Weasel destroys is his innate establishment fear of countries with no record of invading other countries suddenly becoming hyper-aggressive. Though with the U.S. military machine on its border the prediction might turn out be prescient. Daalder sadly represents a typical world view that is delusional in its insistence on maintaining the ruse that the U.S. is an entirely neutral player, sitting atop its mountain of nuclear warheads with Soloman-like wisdom interested only in peace and democracy. I posted my own rant in the reader's blog section entitled "Whither Phase II? Blame It On Iran" of which the following has been excerpted:

"......Never mind about the fact that Iran has a right under international law to nuclear power. Forget that the boys in the nuke club have absolutely no intention of maintaining their obligations under the NPT and yet seem fit to threaten Iran with lethal force if they do! Baloney! Who cares? Stop harping on all this history stuff. You know that nasty little business about a CIA/British coup installing the Shah when their democratically elected leader suggested that Iran should have control over its oil. Forget that in Iran there is a healthy, public debate over whether to pursue nuclear weapons while all the rest of us WMD holders developed our weapons in total secrecy, even from our own citizens. Forget the talk of Iran being surrounded by nuclear tipped missiles. If you don't put a sock in it with this whining about how Israel made a huge display of how their purchase of the latest fighter bombers from the U.S. can, just coincidently you understand, fly missions to and from as far away as Iran, I'm going to force you to listen to a Bush radio address. So what if they're nervous because they have watched how the U.S. enthusiastically supported Iraq's initiation of a bloody war with Iran that killed millions. Sorry, your take on the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor actually jump starting their nuclear weapons program doesn't fly with me. To heck with the U.S. being the biggest arms merchant in the world. I've had it with all of your harping on the U.S.'s insistence on achieving "Full Spectrum Dominance" over the rest of the world and how that increases the likelihood of more states wanting to protect themselves from the threat of U.S. aggression. That line of thinking is twisted. I guess we should all blame America first, right? Will you shut up about U.S. space based weapons on the drawing boards that are fueling an arms race with China and Russia? Forget that the mullahs might be antsy over the U.S. attacking Iraq, which didn't have nukes. Phooey! We're not attacking North Korea, a far more dangerous regime? What's your point? Are you suggesting it's because they have a few bombs? We're not scared of that Kim dude! We have priorities. Forget all this blather about sanctions and/or military strikes setting back the democracy movement in Iran. We know something about sanctions, buddy. Look, killing 500,000 children in Iraq under the sanctions regime and weakening the opposition to Saddam "was worth it". And we sic predators with cameras and missiles on whom we please, mister. Sorry! I can't hear you! I'm not listening to all of this quaking in the boots stuff about how if we lob a little missile into Iran they might make our lives a living hell in Iraq and the rest of the region, the likes of which will have us longing achingly for the good old days of the early occupation, okay? And we've had oil shocks before. I'm not worried about oil prices skyrocketing. Forget about IAEA and their useless inspections. So what if they were right about Iraq and were the one mechanism that could have averted a costly and pointless war. I'm sorry but inspections put me to sleep. Don't bore me with talk of diplomacy and reasoned, steady engagement with our adversaries. Are you kidding? We're talking about the Iranians! They take hostages!! They're not democratic! They don't even speak Arabic for crying out loud! They can't be reasoned with! If you trot out your tired rant about how many murderous regimes (Saddam being a fave) we not only "reasoned" with but kept in guns and hookers for decades I'm going to blow a gasket. I'm serious.

Martin D

This article is unmitigated drivel.  Specifically:

"even those most committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran now accept that diplomacy has run its course, and the time for decision and action has arrived."

Nonsense. The Iranians are five years away from a bomb. Secondly, as the Iranian envoy to the IAEA has pointed out in an interview recently, the seals were broken only to resume enrichment research. Everything is STILL under IAEA video cameras.

So where is the "crisis"?  This is propaganda, nothing more.

" It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes only and that allowing Iran to master nuclear enrichment is therefore no big deal. Given Iran's long track record of hiding and lying about important aspects of its nuclear program, allowing it to develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities -- even under an international inspection regime -- would remove the most important technical barrier to its acquiring nuclear weapons and leave the decision of going nuclear entirely in the hands of Ahmadinejad's radical Islamist government. That is an unacceptable risk."

To whom? Israel? That is the only party at risk from a nuclear Iran - and since Iran would NEVER preemptively attack Israel with nuclear weapons as long as the US - with its thousands of weapons - not to mention Israel's nuclear-equipped cruise missle submarines in the Gulf - is Israel's defender, the entire concept is nonsense.

Iran engaged in hidden nuclear research for PRECISELY the reason that their enemies would engage in the exact logic this article does. They also did for the precise reason that ISRAEL did the exact same thing. Notice how Israel's nuclear program is not mentioned anywhere here? Exactly WHY does Israel need in excess of 200 nuclear weapons to DEFEND itself?

"Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran would represent a major threat to regional and global security. It could deter the United States and others from responding to Iranian aggression or to Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. And given the messianic streak of Tehran's current leaders, do we really want to run the risk of them passing nuclear materials or even a weapon on to al Qaeda?"

This, too, is utter drivel. How can Iran's one or two nuclear weapons possibly deter the United States - with thousands of nuclear weapons and more than enough conventional military power to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in any event - in the event of unprovoked Iranian territorial expansion - let alone an attack on Israel? In the first place, Iran has indicated NO desire to expand its territory to any of its neighbors. Still less likely is the possibility that any such would go unopposed, nuclear weapons or not.

The idea that Iran would hand nuclear weapons to terrorists is completely braindead. Any nuclear weapon handed to terrorists would be tracked back to its origin before or after its use and the supplier would be nuked out of existence. It's ridiculous to even contemplate this scenario.

More importantly, this is the same nonsensical propaganda that was deployed to further notion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US - despite the fact that there was never any evidence of a connection between Hussein or Al Qaeda. The evidence linking Iran to Al Qaeda is scarcely any better. The fact that Iran is run by Muslim Mullahs is irrelevant to the issue. The Mullahs are not going to see their entire nation nuked out of existence by arbitrarily handing out nukes to terrorist groups who are not under their total control for the dubious goal of blowing up a city in Israel. It's ridiculous. It's pure neocon propaganda.

The ONLY scenario at risk here is that a nuclear weapon could be STOLEN by terrorists from a state possessing them. This is PRECISELY the reason that Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If a terrorist group managed to steal such a weapon and use it on Israel or the United States, who would the US be able to attack in retaliation?

This is hyperbolic propaganda, nothing more.

The article IS correct that using military force against Iran - either by supporting an Israeli attack or initiating one ourselves - is a REALLY bad idea.

The article demands sanctions against Iran by making an oil embargo. Just how would this be enforced? The Iraq oil embargo was hardly totally effective, and Iran's oil influence in the world is far larger than Iraq's.

Exactly how would Iranian oil shipments be embargoed? US naval vessels interdicting Iranian oil shipments on the high seas would result in a war in short order.

The impact of an Iranian oil embargo on the world's economies is glossed over by the article as a "necessary price to pay." However, it has already been specifically analyzed by oil industry analysts, and the conclusions are that the world economies cannot afford to lose Iranian oil. This is in fact why the Iranians are not particularly concerned by any particular threat of sanctions. They KNOW that China, Europe and others NEED Iranian oil.

The final paragraph of this article threatens Iran with being a "pariah impoverished state like North Korea." This is extremely unlikely - first, because Iran has much more to offer the world than North Korea - namely oil and gas. It also has a more thriving economy and dynamic culture than North Korea which has languished under Communist rule for the last half century.

In addition, the article ignores the extraordinary lengths that the Iranians have gone to maintain their involvement with the Western community in the process of negotiating for the right to continue their nuclear program. They have voluntarily gone BEYOND their legal requirements in complying with the West - and as a result they have subjected to repeated verbal attacks by the US government and theats of sanctions and military action, including direct threats by Israel.

If I was treated like that, I would tell the West to "get lost", too. 

The entire article offers NO solutions to the Iranian issue - merely more of the same crap we've come to expect from people who do not understand either Iran's attitude or the position of Iran in the scheme of things - not to mention the baleful influence of both Israel and the neocons on this discussion for their own agendas.

Iran WILL become a nuclear power in the next five years IF that is what they want to do. The only country negatively affected by this situation will be Israel - and that will be GOOD for the Middle East. If other countries in the region seek to go nuclear for the same reasons, that also will be good for the Middle East in restraining and preventing the encroachment of Israel's Zionists on the ultimate plan of completely controlling the Middle East and its oil.

The only way to convince Iran and the other nations in the region NOT to go nuclear would be for the United States to renounce all military support to Israel, to go on the offensive in requiring Israel to live up to the numerous UN resolutions it has defied for fifty years, to refer Israel to the UN for sanctions if it does not begin a program of unilateral nuclear disarmament, to force Israel to deal fairly with the Palestinians, and for the United States itself to renounce all of IT'S interference in the internal affairs of the Middle East including the support of corrupt monarchies and secular governments in the Middle East.

This will also reduce terrorism in the West, because these are precisely the issues that are the cause of the antipathy toward the West which spurs bin Laden and others to attack the West.

Since none of this is going to happen, you had better make peace with the idea of a nuclear Iran - and possibly a nuclear Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and anybody else who is threatened by Israel.

Unfortunately, it is very clear that Israel and the neocons in the US intend to launch a military attack on Iran within the next three to six months (timing depending on preparation of the ground in the UN and elsewhere).

Progressives in the US have no more than this amount of time to press Congress to pass legislation explicitly preventing the President from initiating OR supporting ANY military action against Iran without the express Declaration of War by Congress, and to explicitly prohibit the President from authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against ANY non-nuclear nation without the express authorization of Congress.

Otherwise, a year from now, you'll all be saying how you were against the war in Iran from the git-go - as thousands of US troops die every month , and a gallon of gas costs you $10, and the US economy sinks back into recession.

Yep, those war drums are beating triplets.

Like small children, we Americans tend to see everything going on in the world as about us, demanding our attention.
 
The latest Iran moves may well not be about us.  They probably please a lot of people in the Middle East who like to see us get our knickers in a twist, but Iran's muscle flexing is as likely to be about a) internal politics, and b) the relationship with China.  The reaction of the US and Europe could just be gravy for Ahmadinejad who strikes me as being remarkably like George W. Bush in character and pretensions.

The only real information I gleaned is how badly mis-informed conventional wisdom seems to be. The Author takes several half-baked notions and cobbles them together with some wishfull thinking vis-a-vis our tactical and stratigic position. And then he seasoned it with some Karl Rove propaganda that somehow has wormed its way into the public pysche. It smells like faliure and looks like an attempt to convince oneself that we still control events.

We do in the same way a passenger does when the wing comes off the 747 at 35angels. Sure there might be a parachute stashed somewhere, and sure you might somehow find it while overcoming the centrifigul force of the spinning airplane, but mostly we are just along for the ride.

You make for a Darn Good discussion here, Richard. 

 One point that  does not seem very clear though is how Israel  and the neocons will attack Iran in  the next three to six months. Is William Kristol  in the Air Force Reserve or something? 

"Unfortunately, it is very clear that Israel and the neocons in the US intend to launch a military attack on Iran within the next three to six months (timing depending on preparation of the ground in the UN and elsewhere)."

 You make a good point here:  "The article IS correct that using military force against Iran - either by supporting an Israeli attack or initiating one ourselves - is a REALLY bad idea."

This truly is a good discussion; we should have had one about Iraq.