Take The Pledge

From IBD:
Posted 6/12/2006

Iran: With the American public seemingly reluctant to go to war, some would-be national leaders may be tempted to play the appeasement card. So can Tehran just dig in and wait for the U.S. to go wobbly?

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no doubt asked himself that question. And the latest word from Tehran suggests that he and the mullahs think the answer is yes.

Following the U.S. offer of direct talks — but only if Tehran halts its nuclear enrichment — Iran has not come close to meeting that condition.

Instead, it suggests it will deliver some kind of counteroffer, and it stands by what a spokesman on Monday called its "absolute right" to nuclear fuel technology.

The Iranian strategy may become clearer in coming days as it decides whether to take the U.S. offer or take its chances with the United Nations Security Council.

At this point, Tehran talks as if it's happy to choose the latter. And we'll give the regime this much: It may be crazy, but it's not stupid. It knows that any unity displayed by the U.S., Western Europe, China and Russia is fragile and probably temporary.

What's more, in a little more than 2 1/2, the Bush presidency will be over. Iran may be figuring that it will have the best of both worlds by then — a nuclear weapons program too advanced for the rest of the world to stop, plus a new U.S. government with no stomach for a fight.

If that's Iran's hope, now is the time to squelch it with with a clear, bipartisan statement of resolve. Anyone with a serious shot at becoming president should take an anti-appeasement pledge, making it clear that, if elected, he or she would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran's regime from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.

And if asked whether "whatever is necessary" includes military action, the answer should be affirmative and clear.

At this point, most Republicans angling to succeed President Bush would probably take the pledge without a second thought. About the Democrats we have more doubts, not just because they're inclined to oppose Bush in every way they can, but also because public opinion puts temptation in their way.

First there is the pacifism of Democratic activists who will do their best to bar even moderately hawkish candidates (such as Hillary Clinton, who has voiced support for a possible Iran military strike) from the 2008 nomination.

But the urge to appease rather than attack is not just a left thing. Surveys of the general public, including the latest IBD-TIPP Poll, suggest that most Americans don't want a fight — at least not yet.

In the IBD-TIPP Poll taken June 5-9, 55% of the respondents said the U.S. should not take military action against Iran "if negotiations between the U.S., its allies and Iran fail to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities." Only 34% thought an attack would be appropriate.

At the same time, most of those surveyed had little hope that the U.N. would be effective: 63% said they were "not very confident" or "not at all confident" in the U.N.'s "ability to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Such numbers reflect an attitude dangerously close to resignation: Iranian nukes are inevitable, so let's make the best of a bad situation and try to avoid conflict.

Such may be the thinking of a public in denial about the seriousness of a threat, as was Europe in the 1930s — and, by all accounts, as is Europe now. It's all too easy for would-be leaders to exploit this attitude rather than work to change it.

Iran needs to see instead that America has real leaders, including those of both parties aspiring to high office, who won't trade the national interest for short-term political advantage.