EDITORIAL: The Iran crisis

Consider the following scenario: Iran continues with its nuclear development program in defiance of the latest U.N. Security Council resolution. Feeling threatened, Israel, a de facto nuclear power, stages a pre-emptive airstrike against Iran. Tehran responds militarily and the entire Middle East, including Iraq and countries along the Persian Gulf, is thrown into turmoil.

This worst-case scenario must not be allowed to happen. What, then, can be done to prevent it? The U.N. Security Council concluded that additional sanctions represented the best option. This is the fourth time that such measures have been taken. In this round, the council broadened the scope of sanctions. Added to the list of frozen assets are those that belong to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the apparent driving force behind Iran's nuclear development and missile programs.

Iran started its uranium enrichment program without properly notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency. When the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for a suspension of the program, Iran refused to comply.

Iran then upped the ante by announcing it would raise concentration levels. It also announced a series of policy steps that did nothing to squelch international suspicions and made plans to expand its enrichment facilities.

U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking after the resolution was adopted, said that action signaled the global community's determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We could not agree more. Iran must accept the fact that a grave situation has developed.

How can this resolution be used to force Iran's hand? It's one thing to present a united front, but if Iran continues to thumb its nose at the world and the situation worsens, the prospects for a solution will vanish.

The combination of pressure in the form of sanctions and diplomatic dialogue will become even more important.

Once again, we take particular note of a compromise proposal that Iran agreed to in May with the mediation of Turkey and Brazil.

Under the plan, Iran will ship 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium to Turkey. The enrichment level is 3.5 percent. In exchange, it will receive 120 kilograms of nuclear fuel rods processed and enriched to 20 percent for a research reactor built for medical purposes.

Turkey and Brazil, nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council, opposed the recent U.N. resolution. They apparently did so because they did not want to scrap the compromise reached with Iran, even if it is unlikely to bear fruit anytime soon.

Many Western countries are deeply skeptical of the agreement. Their main worry is that it does not include the suspension of uranium enrichment activities. If low-enriched uranium is shipped outside the country, however, it could push back the timing of Iran's capability to possess nuclear weapons.

Even if the compromise materializes, it won't not dispel suspicions about Iran's nuclear program. Still, it offers the prospect of not causing the crisis to escalate. That would be a step closer to a diplomatic settlement.

The United States basically gave Israel a slap on the wrist for its disastrous military action against a flotilla carrying aid supplies to Gaza. But if Israel attacks Iran, Washington will find itself in tight spot. A big problem for the Obama administration is how to advance diplomacy to sever this vicious cycle.

Turkey, which is situated in the Islamic world, is a member of NATO. Why not encourage Ankara to talk to Tehran about finding common ground with Western nations? Multilateral diplomacy offers the best prospect for a breakthrough.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 11