Nuclear test

Joe Biden, running as Barack Obama’s veep pick last October, said, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like [it] did John Kennedy.”

Iran has duly presented President Obama with an extraordinarily difficult test — one in which he is pulled in different directions by his instincts and those of his most ardent supporters, by the recent history of American military intervention in the Middle East, by the strategic and commercial calculations of cynical rivals, allies and adversaries, and by myriad other cross-currents.

Only the uninformed or disingenuous can now believe that Iran is not rushing toward the creation of a nuclear arsenal. If the uranium enrichment plant at Qom were really for medical purposes, as Tehran claims, then the Iranian regime would not have kept it secret (illegally) and acknowledged it only after the United States, Britain and France revealed that they had known about it for years.

The Iranian tyranny preaches death to America and the annihilation of Israel, it steals democratic government from its own people, it pursues regional hegemony, it sponsors terrorism and it is perhaps as little as a year away from acquiring the bomb.

This immense threat is a test in Washington not only of Obama but also of Congress. The majority of Capitol Hill’s 535 lawmakers have signed on to one or more pieces of legislation designed, at least ostensibly, to put pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. But as is made plain by the title of the most popular bill — Rep. Howard Berman’s (D-Calif.) H.R. 2194: To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 … — Iran has been subjected to sanctions for a long time, and they have done nothing to deflect its malign purpose. Sanctions sometimes work — they eventually ended apartheid in South Africa, for example — but even their sporadic successes take far longer to achieve than the time now available to change Iran.

It is hoped that China and Russia, which have previously opposed strict sanctions against Iran, might be amenable because of the shock of Qom. But those nations’ responses are still reported to be “murky,” which bodes ill for the prospects of a unified diplomatic effort.
Yet if broadly agreed-upon international sanctions are unattainable, what are the other options?

Some people expect a military strike by Israel, for whom the Iranian bomb is an existential threat. A military strike by the U.S. seems highly unlikely in the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some problems are said to be so awful that they don’t bear thinking about. This one, though, should engage every lawmaker who wishes to believe he or she is doing vital work for the American people.

Sanctions bills, diplomacy, oversight hearings and rhetoric must all aim for real results, not political cover and useful sound bites. Lawmakers must demand this from the president, but they must also insist on no less from each other.