Obama to "Isolate" Iran

President Obama, he of the "changed intelligence" on Iran that led to the new missile defense scheme in Europe, is now reacting to the "changed intelligence" on Iran that indicates the presence of a second, secret uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom (on a side note, it seems to me that Islam has an awful lot of "holy cities"). That the President knew of this facility DURING THE TRANSITION has been widely reported--yet he still sent them a "why can't we just be friends" letter (which the Iranians ignored for six months), he still set up talks with them (starting October 1) and he still went ahead with his missile defense plan for Europe.

The Clinton and Bush Administrations have been warning the world about Iran for years, yet Russia, China, and often Old Europe have conspired to keep sanctions on Iran to no more than a trifling. This article mentions some interesting financial weapons (targeting the insurance market) being used against the Iranians, which is something I applaud.

But I don't see the international community coming together to the extent necessary to make a sanctions regime against Iran work, at least not yet. Hell, Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old, and the international community wants him set free. My friend Chris Preble at CATO has an interesting take on the issue, and advocates offering to end Iran's isolation in order to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program. I actually think that this is largely the policy goal of the Obama Administration, one that is unlikely to work and which will put us right back where we are now.

Here's one policy option that I haven't heard mentioned. Why not move right past the government in Tehran and start talking directly to the people? Why not start to educate the (recently restive, well-educated and relatively free) Iranian population as to EXACTLY what being a nuclear nation means. Western democracies and even the former Soviet Union had rich intellectual debates as to under what conditions nuclear weapons would be used (the Soviet Union's debates were of course, not conducted in the pages of The Atlantic Monthly as ours were) and how they would be controlled.

Let's get that debate started in Iran. Let's let the people of Iran know what the responsibilities of being a nuclear nation are. Let's acquaint them with the mathematics of nuclear weaponry, which go something like this: "you've been working for fifteen years on your nuclear program, and our evidence suggests that you don't have any weapons yet--but you may have 2-5 weapons in the next three to five years. We have 9000 nuclear weapons (including 6700 reserve/stockpiled warheads). At this moment, we have ten warheads each targeted at Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz and Qom. Should you use a nuclear weapon against any other nation, or should you supply a nuclear weapon to any other nation or group, we will consider that an act of nuclear aggression against the people of the United States, and we will retaliate with the full range of conventional and nuclear options." And then, of course, we have to be ready to carry this policy out.

The Mullahs have built their program in secret, and are defending it now (obliquely) with references to their place in the region, their greatness, etc. But their people have not heard what the consequences of their actions are. They have not heard what being part of the nuclear club means--and that is, your entire civilization will be on the target list.

Will such a declaration by us be popular? Of course not. Will the Iranian government foment huge demonstrations in the streets to protest our "aggression". Of course they will. But in house after house throughout the country, families will begin to talk over their dinner about what nuclear weapons mean and whether or not having them is such a hot deal. I think this is a conversation that will ultimately play out in our favor.