HOME / war stories: Military analysis.

After the Iran NIEDiplomacy might be a good idea.

By Fred KaplanPosted Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2007, at 8:33 PM ET

Fred Kaplan was online on Dec. 6 to chat with readers about this article. Read the transcript.

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

Finally, the NIE states that Iran halted its program "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."

In short, a full reading of the NIE—at least the unclassified version—leads to three conclusions. First, Iran poses no nuclear threat now or in the next few years. Second, it may develop nuclear weapons at some point; work has been halted but not dismantled, and long-term intentions are unclear. Finally, Iran's decisions are influenced by external pressures; they are less likely to develop a bomb if pressures exist—and, by implication, they may be more likely to do so if the pressure is dropped.

One upshot of the NIE is that the United States is extremely unlikely to launch airstrikes on Iran. One downside, however, is that most countries are now unlikely to keep up diplomatic pressure on Iran. At least a few countries that have reluctantly gone along with Bush's call for "smart sanctions," notably China and Russia, may well back out, now that the rationale for such action—the allegedly imminent prospect of a nuclear-armed Tehran—has been nullified.

Since the NIE's release, Bush has emphasized the passages of the report that continue to sound warning bells. But this effort will be dismissed as—and, in fact, will be—lame propaganda unless he also acknowledges, and embraces, the positive passages.

If Bush wants the rest of the world to acknowledge the caveats, he has to acknowledge—and act on—the main message. In other words, if he wants Russia, China, and the European Union to continue the diplomatic pressure on Iran, he has to offer Iran diplomatic inducements. Pressure may be needed to keep the Iranians from resuming their nuclear-weapons program. But negotiations should be started, as a reward for halting their program—and the prospect of further rewards should be held out if they unwind their program still further.

Bush should have started serious talks with Iran two years ago, for a variety of reasons. The NIE offers two additional, compelling reasons for starting them now.

First, the estimate reveals that the window of opportunity—the span of time before Iran can pose a nuclear threat—is much wider than anyone had thought. We can afford to take some risks and try out new approaches.

Second, the estimate will unavoidably, and understandably, spur many world leaders to drop all concerns about Iran and push for an end to all sanctions. This may, in turn, spur Iran's leaders to resume and step up their nuclear program while the pressure is off.

Under the present circumstances, very few countries will join the United States in squeezing Iran—unless the United States offers to let up on the squeeze if Iran continues to cooperate. Even if talks lead nowhere, it's important that this offer be widely seen as genuine. And who knows? Maybe talks will lead somewhere after all. There is no downside in trying.