Tough questions need to be asked before action taken against Iran
Part of Our World
Dan Rather

Next week, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, will meet in Europe to discuss possible new sanctions against Iran in response to its nuclear program.

The Oct. 17 meeting will follow in the wake of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's unilateral declaration that his nation's nuclear dispute with the U.N. is now "closed." But the matter is far from closed and bears closer watching than ever.

The coming European meeting promises to feature U.S. attempts to convince Russia and China on the need for sanctions, as these two countries have signaled their reluctance to further press Iran.

A development this week, in which Iranian negotiators promised to answer U.N. inspectors' questions about uranium enrichment, has the familiar look and feel of a move designed to buy Iran further time and to give the two Security Council holdouts diplomatic cover for their anti-sanction stance.

So what is really going on here? Is the debate over sanctions set to continue indefinitely, or is there some way in which Iran might literally explode onto the world's front pages?

The question of whether or not the United States, Israel or a combination of the two will undertake some sort of military strike on Iran is one that has been heating up in foreign-policy and political circles.

Fueling the speculation, along with Israel's recent strike (which Syria now denies took place) on what Israeli officials said were Syrian nuclear sites and the atmosphere surrounding the intersection of President Bush and Ahmadinejad at the U.N. last month, have been increasing American charges of Iranian meddling in Iraq.

According to a recent New Yorker article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, it is this Iraqi connection - rather than the nuclear issue - that hard-liners in the Bush administration are increasingly seizing upon as a possible reason and justification for a military strike against Iran, specifically a "surgical" strike that would target tactical positions rather than the full panoply of known and suspected Iranian nuclear sites. Among the reasons given for this change in focus and potential scope of action against

Iran is the sense that the American political landscape - specifically, the continuing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq - is such that a more ambitious campaign would meet with domestic resistance. But it may be worth considering, if a relatively smaller strike is truly being considered, whether a conflict with Iran could stop there. For one, it leaves unanswered the question of just how Iran might retaliate.

For another, the notion that the U.S. could strike Iran but leave its nuclear program largely or even partially intact would seem to undermine administration rhetoric about the seriousness and relative imminence of the Iranian nuclear threat. Whether or not it is actually coming to a head soon - and it would be foolish to rule such a thing out - it should be increasingly clear to one and all that the standoff with Iran over its nuclear activities is not going to go away. Wherever one stands on this difficult issue, the time to ask the tough questions is now.

Questions such as: What effect would bombing Iran have on efforts to stabilize Iraq (and therefore begin bringing home our troops)? And what would be the reaction to a U.S. and/ or Israeli attack on Iraq in the broader Middle East? And finally, with Iran's Ahmadinejad facing increasing criticism at home, would an attack on his country help dislodge him and the ruling mullahs from power, or only serve to deepen their hold?

Watch the maneuverings around Iran closely in the weeks and months to come - and make sure that, unlike the runup to the Iraq War, this time the tough questions get asked ahead of time.

Dan Rather, a native of Wharton, was the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News for 24 years. His column appears by arrangement with King Features Syndicate.