HOW HE SEES IT Diplomacy needed in dealing with Iran

By DANIEL SNEIDER
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
When it comes to national security, the elephant in the room is Iran. Beneath the din of pumped up political rhetoric about the war on terrorism, the Islamic regime in Iran is resuming its march toward nuclear weapons.
Last October, Iran reached an agreement with Britain, France and Germany to accept more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It also suspended uranium enrichment in return for assistance to its civilian nuclear energy program.
But in June the Iranians announced they were resuming production of centrifuges for enrichment. While continuing to deny they are seeking weapons, Iranian officials have recently declared they would never give up their "legitimate right" to such programs.
A broad consensus has emerged in Iran in recent months to preserve the nuclear option, one that stretches from anti-regime emigres to hardline Islamists, say close observers. Regime officials believe the U.S. is too bogged down in Iraq to threaten them.
More militant elements, such as the Revolutionary Guard, which has effective control of the nuclear facilities, have concluded that unless Iran has nuclear weapons, it will suffer the fate of Iraq. They see North Korea as the model to follow.
"They are hell bent on getting the bomb," says Hoover Institution Iran scholar Abbas Milani. "They see all these negotiations as delaying tactics."
Most experts believe Iran is still a year or two away from even the beginnings of a bomb. The IAEA's inspections have slowed the Iranian program, though there may still be secret facilities. The latest IAEA report, issued this week, offers a mixed picture of Iranian compliance and important questions are still unanswered.
The diplomatic option is not yet exhausted. The Europeans are offering a "grand bargain," shutting down the weapons-related programs in exchange for broader economic ties, security assurances and other incentives. They would support civilian nuclear energy, including completion of the Russian-built Bushehr power plant, provided Iran returns all the spent fuel to Russia.
There are serious doubts though, which I share, about the will of our allies to join us in applying coercive pressure on Iran. That would begin with reporting Iranian violations to the United Nations Security Council, setting the stage for imposing economic sanctions.
European negotiations
President Bush has backed the European negotiations. Senior officials have signaled they could live with the Russian reactor.
But the administration is also fractured. The leak of secret documents on Iran by Pentagon officials to Israel reflects those battles. Hardliners, led by John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, argue that Iran must be isolated, not engaged. Bolton calls for the Bushehr reactor to be halted and is pressing to move now to the U.N.
Those circles advocate giving money and guns to Iranian opposition groups. Most Iranian experts believe such an attempt to impose regime change from the outside will fail. And any Iranian government, for reasons of national pride and aspirations for great power status, may want to possess nuclear weapons.
A military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities should remain a last resort. Iran has probably deeply buried and dispersed its facilities. It would require not only air strikes but also special forces on the ground, says Jay Davis, a former senior nuclear planner and defense official. "We'd lose people and it's an act of war, but we certainly can do it," he told me.
But it would come at a great cost. Iran can retaliate, from terrorism to aiding anti-American forces in Iraq. An attack would strengthen hardline Islamist elements within Iran and weaken pro-Western moderates.
"That is what the Revolutionary Guards are dying to happen," says Milani, who is a critic of the Islamic regime. "It would be a shot in the arm for this regime -- even more than $50-a-barrel oil."
For now, coercive diplomacy is the only real option. We cannot hesitate to escalate pressure, beginning with economic sanctions and by making it clear that a military strike is a real, if last, option. This is a time for cool heads and firm hands.
X Daniel Sneider is foreign affairs columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.