Iran’s nuclear defiance of the U.N.

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.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the IAEA move “illegal” and said Iran would redouble its efforts to enrich uranium for nonmilitary purposes. “The Zionist regime and its backers cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran’s nuclear work,” he told a crowd, to chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Israel says that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence and has hinted it may bomb Iran’s reactors.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

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.

Sign up

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.”