A familiar pattern

As many of you know, I've been quite agitated for some time over events concerning Iran's desire to develop nuclear power facilities (see "on Iran" in the sidebar below), critical at first of the overly belligerent, bullying stance taken by the U.S. toward Tehran, and, more recently, of the inexplicably aggressive behavior exhibited by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sadly, things are heating up again on both sides, in an all too familiar pattern of push and shove that has potentially terrible implications.

To begin with, I'm continually shocked by the lunacy of Ahmadinejad, which, even if carefully calculated for domestic political gain, demonstrates his immaturity and unreliability as a national leader. The Iranian President seems oblivious to the negative effect his repeated hard-line outbursts are having on IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei and countries that were previously his supporters in the nuclear debate. In addition, Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric is only serving to justify the position of Western opponents eager for U.N. sanctions or military intervention.

This is all the more baffling when just a few months ago, circumstances had essentially succeeded in quieting the saber-rattling of the U.S., and workable plans put forth by Russia and the EU3 had gained begrudging American support. That Ahmadinejad would so willingly sabotage his nation's global reputation with a series of increasingly deplorable public statements, thereby playing right into the hands of his opponents, is beyond comprehension.

Even I am tempted to side with the Administration upon hearing statements from the Iranian President such as:

"The Butcher of Sabra and Shatila [Ariel Sharon] has joined his ancestors and others will soon follow suit."

"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return." (referring to the return of the Shiite Messiah, the Mahdi.)

"We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that... is ready to rule the world."

Nevertheless, I continue to believe that now, more than ever, the Iranian situation demands firm but patient diplomacy, and I'm nervous that the Administration will use Ahmadinejad's rhetoric as an excuse for escalating and accelerating a policy of unnecessary belligerence toward Iran. After all, America has its share of visible and influential madmen as well, and inflammatory rhetoric about the assassination of foreign leaders and the destruction of Islam has been known to foul the air before - but we'd never accept the premise that homegrown hyperbole alone could be used by a foreign power to justify an attack on our shores.

Condi Rice's comments yesterday seemed very similar to statements made about another "uncooperative" Middle Eastern nation not so long ago. And the return of "time is running out" claims should be extremely troubling to all of us, especially when there is general agreement among objective observers that Iran is years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Secretary Rice stated on Thursday:

"We are moving into a period of time with Iran where I think we're going to have to, the world is going to have to make some decisions."

While I hope that those "decisions" are diplomatic in nature, I can't help but compare this scenario with the hasty dismissal of diplomacy three years ago, and the eagerness for military action already demonstrated by Ms. Rice and her bosses after overstating the "imminent threat" of Iraq's regime in 2002. Ginning up the danger posed by Tehran paves the way for truly frightening opinions like this one, written today by Move America Forward chairperson Melanie Morgan:

"[D]o we have the will to strike first to save our allies and ourselves?

If we un-spool the last of our political options and Iran's nuclear program continues, then we have no choice but to take pre-emptive military action to blow Iran's bomb-making facilities back into the Stone Age."

The most reasoned analysis I've seen about Iran's nuclear ambitions, realistic capabilities, and political rhetoric, appears in today's New York Times, in an interview with Joseph Cirincione, director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Cirincione states:

"It isn't in their interest to have a program under way that, if discovered, could provide the basis for either sanctions or military actions. Their strategy, I believe, is more cunning than that. They're following more of a Japan model, of acquiring the technology peacefully for the production of nuclear fuel. If successful, that would put them in a position sometime in the next decade of going over to production of nuclear weapons material if they then decided it was necessary."

This assessment, to me, does not imply any imminent threat from Iran that would necessitate anything other than continued diplomacy with that nation's leading statesmen. Because an increase in official U.S. aggressiveness will only exacerbate the defiant posture of Ahmadinejad, now is certainly not the time to hurry. And in reference to that defiant posture, Mr. Cirincione offers this conclusion about the rhetoric of the Iranian President:

"The government is not popular, the economy is miserable, the new president has failed to deliver on any of his economic reform promises made during the campaign. Under such a circumstance, it's always useful for a leader to 'wag the dog,' to help create an image of themselves as being the resolute warrior who will defend Iran from threats real and imagined."

Now that sounds unsettlingly similar to another hard-line President with whom we're much more familiar. Unfortunately, we know from experience that in his case, "wagging the dog" was the prelude to an unprovoked military attack.