Iranian Diplomacy Over

As more news comes out about Iran's nuclear program, including the fact that Iran continues to produce uranium hexaflouride gas that could be used to make weapons despite the agreement with the EU-3, the rest of the civilized world must decide what is the next step. From their past history it is clear that Iran has no intention of abiding by the agreement it made. Their goal right now is to stall until they have produced everything necessary to make nukes. The response of the world so far has been very similar to the responses to terrorists prior to 9/11 - threaten, and then ultimately do nothing. With Iran, this is not a good option. A nuclear Iran is undoubtedly a large negative for US national security, and goals in the Middle East. Caroline Glick makes a very persuasive argument that diplomacy is no longer possible.

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

Jack Straw's statement

"I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."

only adds to Glick's argument that further diplomacy is not an option. For diplomacy to succeed, there needs to be some threat; and once there is no threat, there is nothing to compel the Iranians to abide by any agreement.

So where does this leave things? It seems that Europe has resigned itself to a nuclear Iran - following its tried and true course of surrendering to any aggressor. The US has publicly stated that such an outcome is not acceptable, but US action is somewhat constrained by Europe and by our engagement in Iraq. And for both the US and for Europe, a nuclear Iran is not an existential question (at least in the mind of Europeans). For Israel however, it is, and therefore the burden of resolving another nuclear issue falls on her.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.
[...]
On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.