IRAN ON DECK - AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Even as we celebrate the holidays, plans are being made for the next great foreign-policy challenge, the confrontation with Iran.  And the question is being asked:  Will Obama fold?  From The Hill:

Iran's refusal to accept a nuclear deal by the end of the year is setting up a major foreign policy test for both President Barack Obama and Congress.

Just after passing the historic healthcare reform legislation that has consumed the Senate's attention, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stressed Thursday that he wants to bring sanctions legislation to a vote when lawmakers return from the Christmas and New Year's break in January.

Well, Harry and Urgent Agenda found something to agree on.

There has been no indication that the administration would use force against Iran's nuclear facilities as the White House has clearly favored the diplomatic route from Day One. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen reiterated that this week when he said military action would be of limited use in stopping Iran's "determined pursuit of nuclear weapons."

And that is the problem.  When you appear to take your strongest option off the table, you flash weakness, and your enemy has little incentive to make concessions.  The Iranians know that it's unlikely we can muster the needed support from China and Russia for painful sanctions.

Israel, however, has hinted at preemptive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a last resort, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the Iranian threat a priority in his talks with Washington.

But will Israel strike without our approval?  Highly unlikely.  The Israelis are suspicious enough about this administration, and might fear that they, not the Iranian machine, might be made to look like the villains after an attack.  Also, Israel's ability to carry out the kind of sustained attack needed to do real damage in Iran is limited. 

A Rasmussen Reports survey released Wednesday found 67 percent of respondents saying that the U.N. has not been aggressive enough in response to Iran's nuclear program, with half of all those polled saying the U.S. should help Israel if it decides to attack Iran.

There is frustration on the Republican side with the pace of things:

As in the House, the Senate sanctions are likely to have heavy bipartisan support, even as Republicans have expressed frustration with what they view as too-light pressure by the administration on the Islamic Republic.

"We've wasted a year," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Sanctions have to be tried before we explore the last option. The worst option is a military action."

COMMENT:  Unless something surprising intervenes, Iran will be the biggest foreign-policy story in 2010, even bigger than the surge in Afghanistan. 

One of the worst outcomes is the one most likely - some kind of fig-leaf deal with Iran that the president can wave before us, Neville-like, but which would do little to slow down the Iranian nuclear program.  Already there are those in Washington speaking confidently of our ability to "deter" a nuclear-armed Iran.  I don't share their confidence.  Deterring the current Iranian regime is like deterring Japanese kamikazes.  Those sworn to madness usually carry it out.

The best outcome is regime change, and we should do all we can to encourage that by clandestine assistance to the democracy forces in Iran, something Michael Ledeen has been advocating for years.

December 25, 2009