Over the weekend, Iran stated their intent to enrich uranium to 20% and to build 10 new enrichment plants (reacting to the West’s unresponsiveness to Iran’s nuclear offer). This move also signaled Iran’s intent to allow the IAEA to fully monitor the sites where uranium would be enriched to 20%, which Iran argues it needs to continue to produce in order to provide radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment. This all sounds reasonable when viewed outside of its context, but that context is becoming increasingly looming.

This announced has spurred renewed calls for sanctions in the West, this time the idea being prominently pushed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. This move is likely to be supported by the US Congress, who as recently as December 09 passed a new gasoline embargo on Iran. As is to be expected, there is still a vocal minority in the US who advocate an all-out war with Iran, including most recently (and visibly) Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Daniel Pipes’ NRO article titled “How to save the Obama presidency: Bomb Iran”. Of the utmost importance to note when considering these urgent statements that advocate more forceful responses (re: Bomb Iran) is that these folks have placed politics as the deciding factor in whether to bomb Iran or not. Here is Pipes’ argument (I’m not paraphrasing, it is literally this shallow):

“…[Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations. Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapon capacity.

Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the one that claimed with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program,” No one (other than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.

Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East a yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they could launch an electro-magnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.

Third, polling shows longstanding American backing for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.” (emphasis added)

Compared to this blatant politicking, fear-mongering and biased analysis,  sanctions sound down-right smart. Lets look at a couple key tenets of this argument.

1. Obama is flailing politically and needs to start a war to save his hide: Puh-lease. Anybody that argues for perpetual war (2 wasn’t enough?) as a means to electoral success clearly has their priorities in the wrong place. But they do have the right to think that Obama isn’t doing so hot, and his poll numbers do show that he is waning in popularity since he took office (who doesn’t?). Then again, this whole prodding for the bombing of Iran argument wouldn’t have as much applicability if the president didn’t need short term political gains.

2. “No one (other than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal,”: Well, actually many people are denying that premise who are suspiciously beyond the control of the Iranian regime. Among them, Juan Cole, who today throws water on the fire of those who wish to jump to conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program (as it actually exists, compared to as it exists in the mind of Daniel Pipes).  Add to that the BBC, who as recently as Feb 7th, confirmed that the NIE does not believe the regime is rushing headlong into anything. You know who does believe that Iran is rushing headlong into big nuclear smorgasbord? Israel (who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and does not allow the IAEA to inspect any facilities).

3. “…polling shows longstanding American backing for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure,”: Since when does public opinion make a difference in terms of our foreign policy? Let alone in terms of whether or not to start a war? Considering that the decision to bomb Iran would disproportionately effect the people who live in Iran and the Middle East, why in the world is American polling going to be the lynch pin in this argument? If there is any time specifically not to resign to mere populism, it is in decisions of life and death (war/bombing is one of those). I think that is why the Constitution doesn’t place war-making powers into the hands of the American public.

4. “…if…Tehran get[s] the bomb…they might deploy these weapons…they could launch an…attack on the US,”:  What? Man, this sounds like a crazy scenario, one straight out of the cold war or something. You know, this whole argument is making me think of something, what was it called? Something along the lines of the Cuban Missile Crisis? The same Cuban Missile Crisis that averted worldwide nuclear war, that showcased young president Kennedy’s ability to make decisions “in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations,”. This is a very eerie parallel to be so readily in my mind. For one, that was an actual crisis (as the name may imply). Second, Pipes has completely engineered his own crisis for Obama to respond to – all our previous estimates were wrong, the US is in danger, we must act quickly to protect the homeland.

Yea, we’ll have fun explaining how we were just protecting the homeland when we bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, which just happen to fall under the umbrella of the NPT and the oversight of the IAEA…and what a great precedent that would set. Isn’t the whole unilateral US thing out of fashion? Don’t we need to actually give Obama and the UN’s policies time to work? Or is the crisis too immediate, too risky for us to actually think through our response?

While Pipes and Palin and all their neo-con cohorts are planning how to spin the unilateral bombing of Iran as good policy, the Obama administration is forging international consensus to engage Iran over their enrichment program in hopes of fully integrating them into the umbrella of protections and security that comes through participation the NPT and the IAEA. But that takes time. And time doesn’t fit into the crisis-mode narrative needed to justify an attack on Iran.

I’m glad that the most hawkish person on Iran in Obama’s administration is Hillary Clinton – I’m sure Pipes misses Cheney though.