Bad Options on Iran
Iran is not a monolith. There is a division among the conservatives between hard-liners and pragmatists. The hard-liners hostile to the West play up nationalism. They are boosted every time there is a confrontation with the West or when the United States does not rule out military conflict. For the hard-liners, when the price of oil rises to reflect what oil traders call "the risk premium," it gives the group billions of dollars it would otherwise not have had to broaden support.
Iran's middle and lower classes are frustrated because only the corrupt elites have benefited from windfall oil revenues. How then can we reach out to the pragmatists who believe that the nuclear issue should not be the first priority of Iran because it induces increased international isolation and has a negative impact on its economy? Do we ratchet up the pressure and engage, or would engagement be interpreted as a symptom of a weaker America bogged down in Iraq?
There could be no worse time for the United States to have a showdown. Iran is in a comparatively strong position, and we are in a relatively weak one. The only realistic course today is to sustain a policy of careful diplomacy, supported by sanctions or the threat of greater sanctions; an approach that led to the recent release of the 15 kidnapped British sailors and marines. This will require patience, statesmanship-and a thick skin, given the outrageous behavior of the Iranian regime.
The critical moment will arrive when this or the next president's national security adviser walks into the Oval Office with credible intelligence that a radical Tehran is at the point of getting the bomb and only military action will stop it. Then the crisis will escalate no matter what the president's decision will be. Time is not on our side.
advertisement