[BlackGriffen]

I'm not going to reproduce it, but I'll try to pick the most tittilating excerpts to encourage people to read the commentary:

[...]
As a watchdog organization, the IAEA focuses on preventing states from acquiring the technology necessary for nuclear weapons. By conducting inspections, limiting Iran's access to proscribed technologies and invoking prospects of economic sanctions, the IAEA seeks to curb Iran's appetite for nuclear arms. But none of these procedures addresses the core of Iran's motivation for the bomb.

While it is convenient to dismiss Iran's quest for nuclear arms as a product of radical Islamic doctrine, this dangerously misconstrues the genesis of the Iranian program. Rather than religious dogma, Iran's nuclear ambitions are born of the compulsion -- crystallized by the bitter experience of its eight-year war with Iraq -- to craft an impregnable deterrent capability. In the post-Sept. 11 period, the massive projection of American power on Iran's periphery and the Bush administration's shrill "axis of evil" rhetoric have further enhanced the value of nuclear weapons in the clerical cosmology.

Despite these dire developments, no one should presume that the perennially fractious Iranian theocracy has settled on its course. Within the corridors of clerical power, a subtle yet significant debate regarding the strategic utility of nuclear weapons is going on. For while all of Iran's contending factions are united on the need to sustain a vibrant nuclear research program, the prospect of actually crossing the nuclear threshold has generated vigorous disagreement. Through bilateral diplomacy involving direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, the United Sates can still affect Iran's nuclear deliberations.
[...]
Iran's moderates are increasingly drawn to the North Korean model: Pyongyang has adroitly managed to employ its nuclear program to extract economic and security concessions from the international community. Through a similar posture of restraint and defiance, threats and blandishments, perhaps Iran can also use its nuclear card to renegotiate a more rational relationship with its leading nemesis, the United States. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi alluded to this stratagem by claiming, "We are ready for discussions and negotiations, but we need to know what benefits the Islamic Republic would get from them."

The United States, by relaxing its economic sanctions and granting Iran a voice in the postwar Persian Gulf deliberations, could disarm clerical hard-liners who require American belligerence for perpetuation of the nuclear program. In exchange, Iran would have to accept verifiable restraints on its nuclear activities. Indeed, an Iran whose strategic environment is stabilized and enjoys expanding economic ties with the United States is likely to be a more constructive interlocutor on issues ranging from terrorism to human rights.

This is a case where neither the unilateralism of the Bush administration nor the multilateralism espoused by the president's critics will provide a durable solution. Rather, bilateralism, a deal between the United States and Iran, is what's needed -- much more than relying on the IAEA and economic and military threats. In the end, such nuanced diplomacy is the best way to stem another proliferation crisis in the Middle East.

Color me less than impressed at the prospect of a "Pyongyang" model. That one turned out really well.

That said, I also have to disagree with the idea of just a bilateral approach - It didn't work with NK, I doubt its effectiveness here. We need both the carrot of relaxed US sanctions and the stick of international sanctions, I feel, which requires a multi-lateral approach.

BlackGriffen

[PacHead]

Sorry don't agree. Those insane evil people who lead that country are not to be trusted, and I bet they get bombed soon. I don't care if Israel does it, or the USA or whoever.
Their reactors will get taken out.

[vmarks]

Ahem. The Bush administration has fostered a multi-lateral approach to North Korea.

Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia are all leaning on North Korea thanks to the current administration's diplomacy. The six-nation talks are a product of the Bush administration's leadership.

Now, to negotiate you obviously have to have an honest broker in the talks. North Korea under the Kim's has not been a clear example of honesty, after all (see: Jimmy Carter during Mr. Clinton's administration.)

[BlackGriffen]

None of what I mentioned was a specific criticism of Bush. Well, aside from the fact that his rhetorical and foreign policy blunders are largely responsible for the mess we have in Iran. What's done is done, and I'm more interested in where we go from here.

That said, the Pyongyang model I was critical of was Clinton's, I believe. I'll grant that it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but I'm less than enthusiastic about trying it again. Especially the bit of propping up the local dictator with foreign aid.

That's why, in the case of Iran, I prefer the lifting of sanctions (not the granting of aid) as the carrot, and the expansion of sanctions to include the international community as the stick.

I'm not entirely current about how well the Bush administration's stance on Iran jives with mine, but it's largely irrelevant since it would be insufficient to swing my vote, and the influence I peddle on their stance is next to nil.

BlackGriffen