Iran | The Week

We've just witnessed 'œthe best week for American diplomacy since Bush entered the White House,' said Niall Ferguson in the London Daily Telegraph. After months of intransigence on the Iranian nuclear issue, the Bush administration abruptly changed course and became reasonable. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week offered to sit down and join the Europeans in talking to Iran, reversing the official U.S. policy of nonengagement that has been in place since 1979. As a carrot, the U.S. is even offering to provide Iran with some civilian nuclear technology if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drops his 'œill-concealed nuclear ambitions.' Kudos goes to Rice, who bluntly told Bush that the Iranians would win the battle for world opinion if the U.S. flatly refused to negotiate. This 'œU-turn' on Iran comes 'œnot a moment too soon,' said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. Our tough-talking president, who once relied on threats and 'œaxis of evil' rhetoric, seems to be acquiring a 'œlate-blooming maturity in foreign relations.'

Negotiating with Iran isn't maturity, said Michael Ledeen in National Review Online. It's insanity. What 'œthe architects of this latest foolishness' seem to have forgotten is that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright used this exact policy on North Korea—with disastrous results. Under Clinton, we bogged ourselves down in fruitless negotiations while the North Koreans happily developed nuclear weapons in secret. The only real difference between Iran and North Korea in this regard may be that Ahmadinejad and his followers are orders of magnitude crazier than Kim Jong Il. Iran's rulers are 'œmillenarian fanatics' pursuing nuclear weapons not for self-defense or even as geopolitical bargaining chips, but to bring about their goal of Islamic world domination and the annihilation of U.S. and Israel. We can gain nothing from bargaining with such a regime, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. In fact, by making nice with the current leadership in Tehran, we're sending a signal to Iran's internal opposition that they can no longer count on our support to get rid of these 'œwildly unpopular' crackpots.

You're missing the point, said David Brooks in The New York Times. The White House has 'œno expectations' that the Iranians will negotiate in good faith, let alone abandon their nuclear weapons quest in exchange for a handful of light-water reactors. But by making a show of diplomacy, we have made it harder for the international community—specifically Russia and China—to oppose tough U.N. sanctions if Iran refuses to stop making weapons-grade uranium. Perhaps even more significant, our offer to talk has taken the world's attention off the U.S., and forced the different factions in the Iranian regime 'œto argue about what sort of country they wish to become.' The choice is relatively simple, said The Washington Post in an editorial. Does Iran prefer to be a rogue nuclear state or a member of the international community?