“On the one hand, it’s nutso to believe, as Edwards seems to believe, that playing nicey nice with the mullahs is going to solve the problem. That’s classic head-in-the-sand make-it-go-away-daddy behavior.”

Funny, the first time I ever heard the position that we ought to playdown anti-proliferation policy in favor of geostrategic interests was form the very conservative — but now very anti-Bush — Genderl Bill Odom. It actually makes sense: the spread of nuclear weapons is probably inevitable, and the question is whether anti-proliferation policy should always trump other concerns, such as playing the Iranians off against the Sunni Islamicists.

Regardless, this _wasn’t actually the Kerry camp’s proposal_ — they are, if anything, much more concerned about nuclear proliferation than the Bush administration, e.g., in revitalizing the cooperate threat reduction program — it was to call the Iranian’s bluff by offering them nuclear fuel and technology in exchange for very restrictive oversight. If the Iranians said “no”, then they couldn’t argue that they were pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes. If they said “yes”, then the international community would get more oversight than it has right now over a program that probably has the capability of producing nukes (thanks, in no small part, to the Pakistanis). Interesting, this is a policy consistent with the NPT that we’re supposed to be enforcing on the Iranians, which is another reason it kind of seems attractive.