February 24, 2005, 8:31 a.m.
Confronting Iran
Anyone with sense perceives a threat: What are our options?

By Rachel Zabarkes Friedman

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the February 28, 2005, issue of National Review.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Vice President Cheney said in a recent radio interview, accusing Iran of supporting terror and pursuing a "fairly robust new nuclear program." Cheney isn't the only top administration official to signal growing American intolerance of Iranian activities: Secretary of State Rice did so during her confirmation hearings, and President Bush had harsh words for Iran in his State of the Union address. These comments are encouraging in light of the past several years, when the Bush administration was by most accounts paralyzed by internal divisions over Iran. But will we see a unified policy this term? What should that policy be?

Iran's nuclear program is among the most troubling of Iran's troubling behaviors. Since the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began inspecting Iran's nuclear sites about two years ago, Iran has been caught lying "dozens" of times about its activities, says one State Department official. Iran's clerics have played along with IAEA inspections, but have disclosed their activities only selectively. (U.S. officials have even raised concerns that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has coached the Iranians to evade detection.) Yet the IAEA says it does not have proof of an Iranian weapons program, and has resisted referring the case to the U.N. Security Council, which the Bush administration sees as the necessary next step.

The administration is emphasizing diplomacy, for now, as the best way to address the Iran problem, maintaining the threat of military action should diplomacy fail. Many American experts say a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities — never mind an invasion of the country — would be misguided, as do leading Iranian oppositionists. But diplomacy and military action aren't the only options. European cooperation is important, but the U.S. can also work to undermine Iran's nuclear program by itself, and to encourage Iranian dissidents in their quest for a genuine democracy. The mullahs are not invulnerable, and with the right mix of international pressure and support for the Iranian people, President Bush may be able to affect the regime's future. The only real alternative is to face an emboldened enemy and a highly unfavorable balance of power in the Middle East and beyond...

YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION OF NATIONAL REVIEW. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO NR DIGITAL OR NATIONAL REVIEW, YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR A SUBSCRIPTION TO NATIONAL REVIEW here OR NATIONAL REVIEW DIGITAL here (a subscription to NR includes Digital access).

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!