Turning the table on Iran.

• Author: Singleton, C. Stolle
• Position: Worldview - Essay

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

SOME 66 YEARS after the explosion of the first atomic bomb, the collapse of a nonproliferation regime and the imminent threat of an age of nuclear terrorism have become real possibilities. Iran has been on a path to develop dual-use nuclear technology for more than three decades and, as CIA Director Leon Panetta points out, that nation may be less than a couple of years away from having as many as two nuclear weapons.

Pres. Barack Obama extended an open hand seeking cooperation and compromise, for over a year, through a strategy of direct engagement; however, Ivan chose to keep its fist clenched, continuing to conceal its true aims behind a veil of diplomatic overtures. Engagement with Ivan was met by revelations of continued Iranian defiance of international obligations--in September 21309, the Qom enrichment facility came to light; in November 2009, Iran publicly ordered the construction of five new enrichment facilities; and in February 2010, Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaimed Iran a "nuclear state" following the successful indigenous enrichment of uranium to a 20% concentration. The U.S.'s standing in the Middle East and the world hinges on America's ability to confront Iran successfully, preventing it from becoming the ! 0th nuclear state.

Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College London, explains in The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy that credibility is the "magic ingredient" of deterrence, and is a direct function of an adversary's perception of a state having the military capabilities and political willpower to carry out its declared objectives. While the U.S. and its allies possess the military capabilities, they have failed to indicate they have the will to confront Iran seriously for its violation of international law, thus emboldening that nation's determination to acquire nuclear weapons technology.

Pres. Obama continues to insist publicly that a nuclear Iran is an "unacceptable threat" and all options, including military action, remain on the table. However, confidential cables, revealed on WikiLeaks, from the American Embassy in Beijing to the U.S. Secretary of State in 2039, illustrate that Iranian leadership dismisses the notion that the U.S. would respond to Iran's continued nuclear development with military action. The Iranian regime considers itself to be negotiating from a position of power, in the eyes of its rulers, disregard for international obligations and continued nuclear development outweigh the perceived costs of isolation and stronger sanctions.

In 2007, when faced with the threat of further United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, Ahmadinejad proclaimed, "Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train.., which has no break and no reverse gear." Iran has forged ahead on a path of defiance and concealment, taking advantage of the international community's indecision, weakness of penalties imposed, and lack of a unified resolve to combat its drive. Iran blatantly has broken International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, disregarded its international obligations under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and refused to abide by the legal requirements of UNSC resolutions ordering Iran to suspend enrichment activities. The consequences of such obvious defiance--engagement from a position of "mutual respect" and increased pressure in the form of sanctions--have done little to compel that volatile nation to alter its course.

In the past 30 years, Iran's desire for dual-use nuclear technology has become a pillar of the Islamic Republic, fueled by a legacy of foreign dominion and the ambition to return Ivan to the former glory of the Persian Empire; the humiliation of the 1953 U.S.-backed coup; the devastation Ivan suffered during the Iran-Iraq war at the hands of unconventional weapons; the U.S.'s dominant presence in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Israel, India, and Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime perceives the acquisition of advanced conventional and unconventional weapons as a necessity for national security and an inalienable right not easily compromised.

Prior to the Obama Administration's direct efforts at negotiating with Tehran, policy analysts frequently asserted that the absence of diplomacy was hurting American interests. Pres.

George W. Bush was criticized...