Rosner's Domain: Should Iran be trusted?

Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter! / Join me on Facebook!

A lot of Iran-related articles in recent days.

Krauthammer:

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Diehl:

What then? Pollack, a former Clinton administration official, says there is one obvious Plan B: "containment," a policy that got its name during the Cold War. The point would be to limit Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons or exercise its influence through the region by every means possible short of war -- and to be prepared to sustain the effort over years, maybe decades. It's an option that has been lurking at the back of the debate about Iran for years. "In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going," Pollack says.

NYT:

We are encouraged that more talks are set for later this month. But this is no time for complacency or wishful thinking. The United States and its partners must push Iran to open all of its declared nuclear facilities and allow inspectors to interview any Iranian scientist they choose to - the only way to figure out what else Iran may be hiding. The leading powers must also be ready to impose tough sanctions if Iran resists or if negotiations go nowhere.

Clawson:

U.S. friends in the region have reason to be suspicious of the Islamic Republic. Iran wants a greater role in the region than its neighbors want it to have, and revolutionary Iran is using force to achieve that aim, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or the pursuit of a nuclear program. The United States, as a status quo power, has little interest in helping Iran upset the regional status quo. In short, even if it were possible -- which it is not -- a U.S.-Iran strategic realignment would be undesirable.

 Kaplan:

What steps toward political and economic accommodation the United States and its allies might take in exchange for Iranian steps toward denuclearization - whether this sort of diplomatic back-and-forth is even possible or desirable, given the nature of the Iranian regime, especially in the wake of its fraudulent election and hideous crackdown on protesters - is not clear.

Caryl:

Still, it's safe to assume that some skulduggery has already been taking place out of the public eye. The Israelis (and the Americans) must be keeping a close eye on every Russian cargo airplane that enters Iranian airspace, not to mention ships traveling between the two countries across the Caspian Sea. And given the tensions, it's easy to imagine that Israeli special forces are already hunkered down in the desert outside Natanz and Arak, keeping a close eye on everything that's happening in the surrounding countryside and getting ready to switch on their laser pointers when the time is ripe -- as they apparently did in the run-up to the 2007 raid in Syria. This story is far from over.

 Will:

Gates says "the only way" to prevent a nuclear-capable Iran "is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened." But to accept that formulation requires accepting two propositions that would tax the White Queen's powers of belief.

One is that possession of nuclear weapons would make Iran less secure. Question: If Saddam Hussein had possessed nuclear weapons in March 2003, would the United States have invaded Iraq? Iran's leaders probably think that they know the answer.

The other proposition is that Iran's regime seeks nuclear weapons merely to enhance the nation's security and not also for regional hegemony or the enjoyment of the enlarged status that comes from being a nuclear power. To believe that, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.