What happened
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency last week issued an unusually harsh rebuke of Iran for its pursuit of nuclear programs, prompting a defiant response from Iran that included a threat to build 10 more uranium enrichment plants. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna voted to censure Iran for secretly building a uranium enrichment plant in Qom, in addition to its main, IAEA-monitored plant in Natanz. The resolution, which demanded that Iran cease all construction of nuclear sites or possibly face severe economic sanctions, won the rare support of Russia and China. “Our patience and that of the international community is limited,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. “Time is running out.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What the editorials said
Iran is treating the IAEA like it’s a joke, said the Los Angeles Times, but what else is new? Over the past decade, while the IAEA pushed for inspections and negotiations, Iran “kept up the march toward developing nuclear weapons.” The IAEA resolution chastising Iran for doing just that is a tacit acknowledgement that the IAEA approach has failed. “The nuclear dispute reflects distrust between Iran and the United States, and the solution must be negotiated by political leaders—not the IAEA.”
But how do you negotiate with belligerent fanatics? asked the Financial Times. The threat to build 10 new enrichment plants is just “a typical example of the chest-beating bluster that characterizes the Tehran theocrats.” That such construction would be overkill is putting it mildly: The U.S., “the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy with 104 reactors, gets by with two enrichment facilities.” The time to negotiate is over, said the London Times. Iran has used the prospect of talks to play for time while it develops nukes. This is “chilling,” given that its president “gleefully anticipates the extinction of the Jewish state.” Instead of talking, the U.N. must slap Iran with harsh sanctions that actually “bite.”
What the columnists said
But sanctions require “united international action,” said David Aaronovitch, also in the London Times. It will be no easy thing to produce a consensus on sanctions from the Russians, Chinese, Germans, French, Brits, and Americans. Still, there is now some hope for such an outcome. Russia and China, which have strong economic ties to Iran, are finally waking up to the realization that a nuclear Iran would threaten the stability of the region and the world.
Targeted sanctions could be helpful, said Maziar Bahari in The Washington Post, but they must be accompanied by dialogue. “Not talking to Tehran doesn’t work.” George W. Bush tried that for years and he only “helped the hard-liners to consolidate power.” The Revolutionary Guards are now the main power in Iran, and while they are brutal and secretive, they are attuned to their self-interest. “Only by engaging, even with a more radical regime, can the West force Tehran to measure the costs and benefits” of going nuclear.
There’s an alternative to sanctions and more useless talk, said Mona Charen in National Review Online. It’s called regime change. Iranian dissidents want our help, and President Obama could be doing much more to assist them. Even as they dodged “batons and bullets,” the democratic resistance that took to the streets last spring to protest the fraudulent election chanted, “Obama, Obama, either you’re with us or you’re with them.” In fact, open support for the resistance is what “the Iranian regime most fears,” said Michael Gerson in The Washington Post. It’s our best chance to “hasten the return of civilian control in Iran” so that “America would actually have a negotiating partner.”
-
Trump-Putin: would land swap deal end Ukraine war?Today's Big Question Ukraine ready to make 'painful but acceptable' territorial concessions – but it still might not be enough for Vladimir Putin
-
The truth about sunscreenThe Explainer The science behind influencer claims that sun cream is toxic
-
Blue whales have gone silent and it's posing troubling questionsUnder the radar Warming oceans are the answer
-
Putin’s threat to fracture Ukrainefeature Fears that Russia was building a pretext for an invasion of eastern Ukraine grew, as pro-Kremlin protesters occupied government buildings in three cities.
-
Curbing NSA surveillance
feature The White House said it will propose a broad overhaul of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
-
Downsizing the military
feature A new budget plan for the Pentagon would save hundreds of billions of dollars by taking the military off its post-9/11 war footing.
-
Putin ratchets up pressure on Ukraine
feature Russian President Vladimir Putin put 150,000 troops at the Ukraine border on high alert and cut off $15 billion in financial aid.
-
Ukraine on the brink of civil war
feature Ukraine’s capital was engulfed in flames and violence when hundreds of riot police launched an assault on an anti-government protest camp.
-
Ukraine at the breaking point
feature An alliance of opposition groups vowed protests would continue until President Viktor Yanukovych is removed from power.
-
Dim prospects for Syrian talks
feature A long-awaited Syrian peace conference in Montreux, Switzerland, quickly degenerated into a cross fire of bitter accusations.
-
The fight over jobless benefits
feature A bill to restore federal benefits for the long-term unemployed advanced when six Republican senators voted with Democrats.