THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE

 Editorial de  “The Washington Post” del 29.05.2003

THERE IS good cause for the surge of concern about Iran in the Bush administration. Though its Islamic regime has been suspected of pursuing weapons of mass destruction for some time, powerful evidence has surfaced in recent months of a race by Tehran to acquire nuclear bombs. Though Iran has long supported terrorist groups, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, there are indications that senior operatives of al Qaeda have taken refuge on its territory and may have directed the recent suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia. And though the Iranian mullahs have always hoped to export their extremist brand of Islam, they now back some of the most radical clerics in neighboring Iraq, hoping to hijack the U.S.-managed political transition. Administration hawks who press for more aggressive action against the Iranian regime might be suspected of willfully targeting another member of the "axis of evil" now that Saddam Hussein has been vanquished. But they are also reacting to a series of recent and alarming developments.

The United States cannot afford to ignore Iran's new threats; the problem is what to do about them. Until now the administration's policy has mixed mostly rhetorical support for Iranian pro-democracy movements with efforts to stop the transfer to Iran of sensitive technology and quiet attempts to obtain Iranian cooperation against al Qaeda. There have been at least some tangible results: Iranian officials have arrested a number of al Qaeda suspects and transferred some of them to Saudi Arabia. Now some administration officials propose breaking off contacts with the regime in Tehran and undertaking more active efforts to destabilize it -- perhaps by supporting an Iraq-based rebel movement previously harbored by Saddam Hussein. There is also talk of taking preemptive action against suspected Iranian nuclear sites, like the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor 22 years ago.

At least for now, such measures seem more useful as threats than as pragmatic options. Washington's cancellation of a bilateral meeting last week and its accompanying demand for action swiftly prompted an Iranian announcement of further al Qaeda arrests. As there's no evidence of an actual alliance between al Qaeda and Iranian authorities, more pressure -- and continued bilateral discussions -- may well bring still more results. European governments, as well as Russia, also are showing signs of embracing stronger steps to check the Iranian bomb program -- if only to head off U.S. military preemption and avoid repeating the transatlantic brawl over Iraq. If a key report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, expected in two weeks, finds that Iran has violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it may be possible to organize concerted multilateral action, in or outside the U.N. Security Council. Iranian meddling in Iraq so far appears mostly indirect; the recent U.S. cease-fire agreement with the rebel People's Mujaheddin -- which has been formally designated a terrorist organization by the State Department -- may serve to keep Tehran's forces in check. If Iran escalates in Iraq, refuses more intrusive international inspections of its nuclear facilities or appears to actively harbor al Qaeda, the tougher measures the administration is debating may be necessary. But for now, they are not.