Murky Waters

****** UPDATE 2 *****
Iran says it will delay reopening its nuclear facility for two days -- so that the UN can oversee the dismantling of the seals on the facility. There is no indication what so ever that Iran has in any way altered their plans to restart nuclear operations, they're just posponing them for logistical reasons. So this is not an improvement, just a development.
**********************

****** UPDATE ******
The new president of Iran says that martyrdom -- mostly blowing yourself up to kill Westerners -- is supported by his government. Apparently there is state sponsorship of so-called 'martyr squads' where they are trained and equipped. I think the implications speak for themselves, especially with the revived push towards nuclear operations in Iran.

A quote from one of the volunteers should be a warning to Tancredo: "'...We vow to turn into bombs that will explode at anyone who wishes to desecrate our holy places.'"
*********************

Iran has bared its nuclear teeth, again, and the West's next move is of paramount importance. It is not clear, however, what the best move would be. On one hand, if we can stall Iran's pursuit of its nuclear ambitions for awhile by giving them some 'incentives' and spare heightened conflict, that might be a very good thing for many reasons. First of all, the plan is that if Iran breaks its nuclear freeze the EU will join the USA in taking Iran's actions before the UN. Which ought to prompt the UN to do something. However, based on recent history, I doubt the UN will actually do anything to stop Iran. That will, in turn, prove to every 'rouge nation' that the UN isn't going to do anything to stop nuclear development. I think that would be a negative thing. Also, that would mean that most of the force behind the threat to Iran would have to come from the US. Right now the last thing we need is any more military conflict. If it comes to that I'm sure we'll be bombing Iranian nuclear plants and whatnot, but it would probably be better for everyone right now if we didn't have to. Finally, signs show that Iran is getting closer and closer to a revolution from within. If we can suspend any conflict with Iran until the revolution begins our job will be much easier. We can let the Iranians do most of the work to topple the current government, and we can just offer support. And then we can avoid a bloody 'occupation' as well.

On the other hand, appeasement is not a good policy. History has shown that it only encourages aggressive regimes to be more aggressive. If the EU does offer some incentive program right now it has to be seen as a temporary measure, not as policy when dealing with Iran. Also, if the West does not cave in to Iranian demands and sparks a conflict, it might provide the impetus to begin the aforementioned revolution, which would be a good thing. And with the US talking about starting to finish up in Iraq in a year, this might be a good time to get involved in Iran, while our troops and equipment are already over there.

There is going to have to be a regime change in Iran in the near future, there is nothing we can do to avoid that unless we'd like to see Iran take over the world. The question then isn't one of what, but of how and when. The West needs to decide whether this is the right time to begin dismantling Iran. We know that the new president has made it a point to say that Iran will resume its nuclear program, so thinking we can stop them with anything but action is foolish. However, strategically it might make sense to try to stall them now and wait for a more favorable time to enter into direct conflict. Whatever choice the West makes, hold no illusions -- Iran will resume its nuclear development in the near future and there will be some action to topple their government, either from within or through Western countries' force. Its too late to change either of those facts now, as far as I can see.