Democrats offer two unsatisfactory answers on Iran

Amir Taheri:

Having resumed uranium enrichment, has Iran crossed the Rubicon?

The question is dividing commentators and decision-makers both inside and outside Iran.

Some, like former US Vice President Al Gore, believe that Iran is a threat to world peace and must be checked, by force if necessary. Others like Gore's former boss, ex-President Bill Clinton, are convinced that the best way to deal with Iran is to negotiate.

Both, however, may be missing the point.

If military action means a few brief air strikes or missile attacks, it is certain to be counterproductive.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might even welcome such attacks in the hope that they will lift the uncertainty that is damaging the Iranian economy and undermining his authority. And he would not be wrong.

The ineffective missile attacks that President Clinton launched in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s strengthened the regimes in Kabul and Baghdad in two ways.

First, the attacks demonstrated that when the American Damocles sword falls, it does only limited damage. Secondly, the attacks showed that the US did not pursue the broader objective of regime change, the only thing that would have made the Taleban and the Saddamites to pay attention.

Today, we face a similar situation with Iran.

As long as no regime change is on the agenda the leadership in Tehran would not be swayed by air raids or missile attacks. Constant saber rattling by Tehran's genuine or fake adversaries plays into the hands of a new leadership which is actively seeking a "clash of civilization" provided its hold on power is not threatened.

The new Tehran leadership is flattered by the fact that the United States is treating it as an almost equal adversary rather than a ramshackle Third World regime.

...

Any military attack against Iran must focus on destroying Iran's ability to make war, not just its ability to make nukes.