Threatening Iran

PRESIDENT BUSH and Vice President Cheney have been issuing public warnings both to Iran and to other major powers about Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. These unsubtle threats could be meant merely to persuade Iran's leaders to negotiate seriously with their European interlocutors, Britain, France, and Germany. But the threats might also be part of an administration buildup to an attack on Iran.

In either case, Bush and Cheney misunderstand the need to match means and ends. And there could hardly be a worse time for Bush to be berating needed European partners on the Iranian nuclear issue. Earlier this month in Tehran, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a proposal for resolving the nuclear issue directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Some Iranian commentators even hinted that Putin delivered a sobering message that the American war threats need to be taken seriously.

Still, Bush last week warned world leaders, "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing" Iran "from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." At best, this was an unnecessary declaration.

There may be disagreements about the timing and severity of United Nations sanctions on Iran, but Russia and China want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and cut a deal to obtain guaranteed supplies of uranium suitable for peaceful uses. The major powers in the UN Security Council agree Iran must not be allowed to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

The threats from Bush and Cheney also come at a time when the removal of Iran's lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, gives the world a glimpse of how much Iran's factional struggles are entangled with the nuclear question. European diplomats say Larijani did not seem empowered to engage in any real negotiations with British, French, and German counterparts. But domestic reaction in Iran to Larijani's replacement by Saeed Jalili, a crony of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suggests this change of personnel is intended to preclude any softening of the regime's policy.

If there is a way to persuade Iran to forgo any pursuit of nuclear weapons, the means of persuasion cannot be limited to threats. On the contrary, there will have to be assurances of security for the Iranian regime, however distasteful such a prospect may be to Bush and Cheney. Those assurances should involve the Europeans, Russia, China, and Iran's Arab neighbors, but they will be meaningless without an American commitment.

The threats from Bush and Cheney only make it harder to determine whether there is any deal Iran would accept to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.