From Statfor:

Geopolitical Diary: A Shift in Iran's Calculus?

France added some oomph to a U.S. campaign against Iran on Monday when French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the world must prepare for war over Iran's nuclear policies. Kouchner's remarks triggered a fiery statement from Tehran, which called the new French presidency a U.S. copycat bent on impressing the White House. As the Iranians rather cheekily put it, "The French people will never forget the era when a non-European moved into the Elysee."

In the last few days, a number of European states have taken a far firmer position against things Iranian -- in particular, Iran's nuclear program -- than ever before. Under pro-American President Nicolas Sarkozy, France -- once the bastion of pro-Iranian sentiment in Europe under Jacques Chirac -- has openly warned of war as the logical consequence of the Iranian program should circumstances not change. On Monday, the Netherlands threw its support behind a growing movement in the European Union for sanctions, specifically noting that should the United Nations prove unable to enact them, the European Union is morally obligated to.

The only notable European state that so far has held back from threatening war against the Iranians is Germany, which holds the lion's share of European investment in and trade with Iran. But even there the situation is starkly different from two years ago, when Gerhard Schroeder ruled. Not only is Chancellor Angela Merkel's Germany far more willing to consider Washington's point of view, but European sanctions against Iran also would censure Iran's primary nuclear supplier -- Russia -- in a way that would likely avoid a major dustup. As Germany (gently) reasserts its supremacy in Europe, such fights without pain are an excellent means of garnering credibility and momentum.

With all this war and sanctions talk circulating on the European continent, Iran is longing for the early days of the Iraq war, when it could adroitly manipulate the divide between the United States and Europe. Back then, when the Iran-EU-3 talks were still in play, Iran used the nuclear negotiations to buy time to further its nuclear program and bargain with the United States over the political concessions it was seeking in Iraq.

But with Europe shifting its mood and the United States using every opportunity to remind Tehran that a military option is still on the table, the Iranians are now looking at a very uncertain future. At this time, it would be useful to re-examine Iran's Iraq policy moving forward.

Before the delivery of Gen. David Petraeus' Iraq report, the expectation was that U.S. President George W. Bush had lost his fighting power against Congress, and that a withdrawal was all but imminent. The celebrations in Tehran could be heard across the Atlantic as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran was preparing to fill the vacuum in Iraq.

And then came the buzz kill.

Despite repeated declarations that Iraq had barely reached one out of 18 political and security benchmarks, Bush responded to Petraeus' surprisingly optimistic report by declaring that the United States will remain committed to Iraq (particularly the Sunni community). Troop levels will gradually decrease, but Iran will be staring at U.S. forces across the border for a long, long time. In short, Bush was setting an Iraq agenda for a long-term, robust troop presence that will extend well beyond his own presidency.

Iran now has loads to reconsider. A long-term troop presence in Iraq and continued U.S. support for Iraq's Sunni community not only complicates Iran's plans to consolidate its gains in Iraq but also puts Iran in a very uncomfortable situation in which it faces a constant security threat from the United States across its border. Moreover, the nuclear dossier can be seized by Washington (as well as the Europeans) at any time to make a case for military action against Iran. Tehran might be feeling confident that the United States lacks the bandwidth to carry out an attack against Iran now, but give it two or three years and Tehran's clerical regime will be living in a cloud of uncertainty while being boxed in by the United States on both its western and eastern borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively.

Now Tehran must decide whether it is still worthwhile to negotiate an Iraq settlement with the United States, bet that it will not underestimate the United States a third time, and wager that enough pain can be inflicted on U.S. troops and enough chaos can perpetuate in Baghdad to force the United States into leaving the region. The Iranians still have a number of options at hand moving forward, but the decision-making process just got a lot trickier.

We very much need at least some EU support on Iran.  I really do not think continued sanctions will do the trick, however.

I noticed some Democrats stating that President Bush has not given diplomacy a try with Iran.  I know I have personally read of ongoing talks over the last few years regarding Iran's nuclear program so I don't know where the Democrats have been during that time that they would have missed that.  How long do we need to get no where with diplomacy before we go to the next level?  Until its too late?

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 09:47, 2007-09-19