The World Cannot Live With the Threat of a Nuclear Iran

Mort Zuckerman

What can be done? Alas, the U.N. has failed to persuade countries like Russia and China to cooperate in a rigorous sanctions effort. Far from it, they are actually profiting from the sanctions' policy by doing deals in the energy field and selling Iran weapons. Russia and, to a lesser extent, China have made it clear they will block meaningful sanctions by the U.N.—even though effective economic sanctions and measures to isolate the regime may make the difference between a diplomatic deal and a nuclear standoff. But, to date, neither economic distress nor additional sanctions have changed the Iranian calculation.

Fortunately, Iran has an economic Achilles' heel: It is dependent on imported gasoline for 40 percent of its refined fuel. Furthermore, the country requires new investments in its energy industry to maintain current production. Reduced oil prices have put a great strain on its economy. Discontent is growing among a citizenry that is suffering from high inflation, unemployment, and poverty. Clearly, it makes sense to play on this fundamental weakness. We must press harder to coordinate four measures:

1. An arms embargo.
2. A ban on exports to Iran of gas and other refined products to cripple transport.
3. A global boycott of the entire banking system of Iran, instead of helping it as European banks are.
4. A prohibition on Western countries supplying spare parts to the oil industry.

The object, clearly, is not to punish the Iranian people but to force their leaders to act in the best interests of their people and of regional peace. It is the Iranian people who stand to gain the most from the cultural and economic liberations that would follow a sound agreement. And by that I mean a package deal that includes maximum safeguards and control of the nuclear program and the complete cessation of enrichment activities inside Iran: There is no combination of international inspections or co-ownership of enrichment facilities that would provide sufficient assurances that Iran is not producing weapons-grade fissile material.

Before President Obama engages in "aggressive personal diplomacy," as he put it, he would be well advised to allow Iran's economic crisis to take its toll, in the hopes that an economic tailspin will leave the leadership more vulnerable to economic sanctions than it has been in the past 30 years and therefore more ready to come to terms. But there is no certainty that economic sanctions will work in time, leaving us with two unacceptable options: living with a nuclear Iran or acting militarily to prevent it.

The Iranian leaders' judgment is that the current administration is ready to let diplomacy run on and on and on...and will anyway be incapable of making a military move while wrestling with the fallout from our domestic financial collapse. For this reason, many in Iran believe that the United States may be reconciling itself to the idea of living with an Iranian nuclear missile—even though it would be in the hands of an expressly genocidal regime.

Who would have imagined that President Obama may well determine his historical legacy and reputation on the basis of the way he deals with Iran?