'They Want the Bomb': Obama Under Pressure to Get Tough on Iran

• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

The talks last Thursday in Geneva, which included the Americans, French, British, Russians, Chinese, Germans and representatives of Iran, did nothing to dispel the anxiety. Tehran did agree to grant the IAEA access to the Qom enrichment plant in the next few weeks. The West, for its part, agreed to provide Iran with fuel for a research reactor, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had previously demanded as a trust-building measure.

"But we're not interested in talking for the sake of talking," Obama said after his negotiator, William Burns, had delivered his report from Geneva. Despite the relaxed mood at the conference table, the West's suspicions have remained. Its negotiators speculate that Iran is building or even operating other secret nuclear facilities, and they are already thinking about new, tougher sanctions. The White House has mentioned a "two-track policy" of talking while simultaneously increasing pressure on Iran.

US officials have painstakingly compiled a list of industries that are particularly vulnerable to sanctions. Despite its oil wealth, Iran still has to import about 40 percent of the gasoline it needs, which leads Washington to believe that a gasoline boycott could be somewhat effective. But virtually all experts question the value of economic sanctions. "This country has endured so much," says Flynt Leverett, who served on the US National Security Council until 2003. "Just think of the endless war with Iraq."

Beside, all major nations would have to participate if sanctions are to be effective. That, however, is more than doubtful. China, for example, is interested in further developing its economic ties with Iran and has invested billions in new Iranian oil and natural gas projects over the last five years.

Dwindling Desire for Peace

In the US, there is also growing support for the next step on the escalation ladder: the use of military force. The desire for peace seems to have dissipated in many quarters, including among the electorate. According to a study by the public opinion polling firm Rasmussen Reports, 88 percent of Americans are concerned about the recent revelations regarding Iran's second enrichment plant. Only 5 percent believe the Tehran government's claims that the facilities are for peaceful energy production. After North Korea, Iran is now seen as the second biggest threat to the US.

A slim majority of Americans now supports a tougher approach toward the mullahs. According to the Rasmussen survey, 51 percent say that Obama has "not been aggressive enough in responding to Iran's nuclear program." In June, that number was only 40 percent.

This is music to the ears of the hardliners of the Bush administration. Eliot Cohen, former counselor to the State Department, says: "We have only two options: an American or an Israeli military strike, which would probably mean a real war. Or a world with an Iranian nuclear bomb."

Even supporters of the Democrats are voicing similar views. "The obvious danger of Obama's diplomacy," says Jeffrey Herf, a history professor at the University of Maryland, "is that it allows the Iranians to use negotiations to stall for time while they are working on the bomb and enriching more uranium.... The Iranians have made fools of many sophisticated diplomats in recent years. If Obama is not careful, he would be the latest in a long line of fools." Herf is convinced that the Iranians can not be dissuaded by talks. Iran "wants the bomb," he says. "Negotiations won't change that."

Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel who is now vice president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, warns that the military options should not be ignored. In an article that appeared in Foreign Affairs, co-authored by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he writes: "Preventive military action against Iran by either the United States or Israel is an unattractive option, given its risks and costs. But it needs to be examined."

'More Restraint'

In Germany, the previous administration's goal of preventing military action against Iran has not changed since the recent election. The liberal Free Democratic Party, soon to be part of the new government together with Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats, likes to paint itself as Germany's anti-war party. In 2003, for example, the FDP rejected a proposal to expand Germany's Afghanistan mission, just as it later opposed expanding Bundeswehr missions in Congo and off the Lebanese coast. Westerwelle has always stated that he advocates "more restraint" for German policy in the Middle East.

Oddly enough, Merkel's closest ally is US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only member of the Bush cabinet to have kept his position in the Obama administration. So far Gates, who has been unwilling to take part in the game of verbal escalation, has counseled moderation.

"The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," he said in an interview during the Bush years. He still says the same thing today.

RALF BESTE, GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ, HOLGER STARK, GABOR STEINGART

• Back
• 1
• | 2

• Part 1: Obama Under Pressure to Get Tough on Iran
• Part 2: A World with an Iranian Nuclear Bomb