The new issue of Chronicles includes a very good article on Iran and U.S. policy called “Avoiding the Iran Debacle” by Srdja Trifkovic. Dr. Trifkovic assesses the progress of Iran’s nuclear program:

The Iranians are undoubtedly enhancing their enrichment capability and seeking control of a full nuclear-fuel cycle, but there is nothing in the recent International Atomic Energy Agency’s report to indicate that they are building a bomb. Nonetheless, the drumbeat has returned to Washington, and its objective is to present a military attack against Iran as a legitimate policy option to deal with a major threat to the United States. This campaign is reminiscent of the propaganda barrage over the 18 months preceding the war against Iraq in March 2003: It is based on an exaggerated threat and on the bogus claim that diplomatic solutions have been exhausted.

Trifkovic then outlines the realist argument against a war with Iran, beginning with Iran’s likely reason for seeking nuclear weapons:

Under the circumstances, having an independent nuclear deterrent is a perfectly rational option for the government in Tehran to pursue–any Iranian government, Islamist or secular, monarchist or republican, pro- or anti-Western. That option is based on the realities of the security equation and not on the millenarian zeal of Shi’ite fanaticism or on genocidal Jew-hatred, as the proponents of war would have us believe.

He goes on to identify a number of adverse consequences for the United States and the world that would result from military action against Iran, including a “global economic meltdown of unprecedented severity and magnitude.” To avoid the calamitous effects of such a war, Trifkovic proposes a different approach:

Instead of plotting a military action against Iran with no clear exit strategy at a prohibitive cost to our core interests, Washington would be well advised to prepare a strategy for dealing with Iran as a nuclear power. Deterring and containing Iran would be easier than deterring and containing the Soviets 50 years ago. The country’s regime, admittedly unpleasant, is neither suicidal nor tainted by the blood of untold millions, as the two communist nuclear powers were. If the Iranian government considers itself threatened by the United States, the solution is to try bilateral diplomacy based on an offer of U.S. security guarantees to Iran in return for a rigorous supervision regime and a formal pledge that Iran refrain from developing nuclear weapons. The Obama administration should make a direct approach to Tehran. A reasonable agreement would also allow Iran to enrich uranium to the extent needed for power generation and accept Iran’s right to the enrichment technology, so long as she agrees to subject her entire nuclear program to international oversight.

All of this is very sensible, and the administration would be wise to pursue this course. Unfortunately, Obama is unlikely to adopt a policy of real diplomatic engagement with Iran when it has refused to do so for almost three years, and Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate interested in an Iran policy along these lines. While Paul’s position on Iran is more popular within the GOP than many suppose, no other national Republican figure is willing to endorse such a reasonable Iran policy, which will almost certainly leave us with a choice next fall between a mildly hawkish Obama administration and a fanatically hawkish opponent.