EDITORIAL: "Unstoppable? Be tough now, to prevent military conflict later," The Economist, 6 May 2006, p. 13.

ARTICLE: "A government that thrives on defiance: Anmd a people who may not be quite so keen," The Economist, 6 May 2006, p. 25.

If you don't read The Economist, you're starving your strategic mind. Seriously. You bag the rest of the news weeklies up and together they still don't equal this beauty. It's just that worthwhile.

I read the magazine as a sanity check--you know, to get my strategic bearings. It typically takes a while to get its arms around a subject, often knee-jerking it at first glance--in that British WSJ-kind of way. But after a bit, it usually settles into such unarguable common sense that it's hard to ignore.

So this editorial runs through all the "on the one hand's" and "on the other hand's" about Iran definitely getting the bomb within a decade or so (and by that, we both mean, an arsenal that would actually matter and not just wave some vials around like some pathetic old Soviet attempt at PR: "Yes, Comrade, our socialist triumph is just around the corner--dance Olga, dance!"), until deep in column two we get to the real heart of the current matter [my asides are noted throughout]:

But if all options are indeed on the table [brushing aside Jack Straw's "nuts" comment WRT talk of military pre-emption] as America suggests, then it is time for the Americans to take a fresh look at the diplomatic one too. It may be that nothing can induce Iran to give up its nuclear plans--it has already brushed away European offers of trade, improved ties and help with other nuclear technologies [then again, Europe can't invade Iran, so maybe that scratch doesn't get at Tehran's itch?]. But between America and Iran there is at least a meeting of motives, if not of minds: Iran's regime points to America's threatening talk as reason to defend itself; to America, Iran's nuclear work makes it a potential target [when all you have is the hammer, the world starts to look like a bunch of nails...]. If Iran agreed to halt its uranium and plutonium activities, and America agreed not to attack, might that open the way to direct talks that could help finess the nuclear problem for good? [As my buddy Hank Gaffney likes to opine: "Mebbe, mebbe not."]

As the later article notes, "Ahmadinejad does not decide Iran's nuclear foreign policies. These are in the hands of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his lieutenant at the top of the National Security Council, Ali Larijani, a political rival of the president's... Having struggled to fend off his domestic critics after coming to power last summer, Mr Ahmadinejad has learned to silence them by beating a nationalist drum. Hence his decision to talk up the nuclear issue at every possible turn ...."

Further on in the article:

In general, Iranians approve of the nuclear programme, though not all believe official assertions that it is peaceful. As long as the programme threatens neither their wallets not their security, their enthusiasm for it as an expression of national self-assertion, and their irritation at what they see as the duplicity of Western nuclear powers, are likely to endure.

Well, high oil prices and growing economic alliance with rising New Core powers India and China make sure that wallets will not be harmed, and the U.S. tie-down in Iraq assures that security is not seriously threatened. Sure, we can bomb some sites, but that won't prove anything, or stop much of anything.

Still, some in the highest reaches of the political regime worry openly about how the nuclear programme is threatening Iran's economy by denying it connectivity to the larger global economy on some level beyond just oil. Akbar Rafsanjani "has long let it be known that he favours direct--though not necessarily declared--talks with America, aimed at settling all bilateral differences."

And Khamenei himself has recently declared Iran's "readiness for agreement and accomodation."

So what prospects exist? The Economist opines that:

A history of Iranian overtures suggests that Iran would dangle concessions on its nuclear programme, its support for Arab groups that reject Israel's right to exist, and common interests such as Iraq, in return for an end to American efforts to destabilize the Islamic republic and a plan to establish full economic relations.

Where have I read such a bold proposal as that before?

Hmm. More than a year ago in the pages of that fluffy magazine Esquire!

Damn! Maybe that's how Warren and company won the National Magazine Award for general excellence, submitting the March ("Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Your Second Term ...") and September (drew a blank there, probably some seriously sexy babe on that cover) and November issues ("The Chinese Are Our Friends") for prize consideration.

I got yer Best American Political Writing--I got it right here!

And now The Economist seems to have reached the same common sense regarding the same common weal.

Yeah baby! Yeah!