IRAN

There’s no question that the emergence of a nuclear Iran in the next year or so will be one of the most important foreign policy challenges either Bush or Kerry will have to face. Our options are limited. We can’t invade another country; surgical bombing will almost certainly miss its target; so we are left with sanctions and/or incentives. What are the differences between Bush and Kerry? In a word: attitude. Check out this piece today about yet another European initiative to try and get Iran to behave. John Bolton acquiesces in the new Euro-plan, but essentially disses it at the same time. Money quote:

A European envoy said Mr. Bolton had been unable to disguise his apparent disdain for the European proposal and spoke with “the minimum courtesy imaginable” in a way that “bordered on the unacceptable.” But he said Mr. Bolton nonetheless agreed tacitly to let the Europeans go ahead with their initiative. Mr. Bolton would not comment. “They didn’t jump on the train physically,” a European official said, describing the American attitude. “But there was nobody who told us, don’t go ahead.”
An administration official, amplifying the American attitude, said: “They didn’t ask for our approval, and we didn’t offer it. But everyone came out of the meeting understanding that we’re not objecting to it or blocking it either. They said they really wanted to do it. We said, it sounds like you’re going to do it anyway, so go ahead.”

I sympathize with Bolton. But why the undiplomatic huff? If we want to get eventual UN disapproval of Iran, we’ll need the Europeans. Why diss them now? If we’re going to acquiesce in something, what purpose does it serve to piss them off in the short term? The truth is: there’s little practical difference between what Bush and Kerry will actually do about Iran. But Bush will continue to do it in a way that needlessly alienates people whose help we could do with. That’s the choice we face.