Tick... tick... tick...

As you read this, one of the decade's worst international crises is brewing. Half a world away, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's top state-sponsor of terrorism, has removed the U.N.-placed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment, is blocking the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and -- according to evidence from a laptop that U.S. intelligence claims to have stolen from Iranian officials -- is developing nuclear warheads. Around the globe, diplomats and decision-makers are trying to figure out how to stop Iran short of risking a war, or whether a war might be preferable to letting Iran succeed in its ambitions.\nThe Iranian question is quickly becoming the major foreign policy issue of the 2008 presidential election, with both parties' hopefuls weighing in on what the United States should do. Among them is Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who is urging Senate support for "a nonbinding resolution to support sanctions, including cutting off supplies of refined gasoline to Iran, stopping arms sales and excluding Iranians from international sporting and cultural events" (Indianapolis Star, Jan 20).\nDown here in the editorial board HQ and fallout shelter, we support Bayh's resolution, although we doubt it'll have much influence. The problem with sanctions is that they're always undermined by our good neighbors in the international community. The United States has maintained tough measures against Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis, but many of our European allies, China and Russia all have commercial interests at stake, particularly regarding oil. \nThen there's the nature of Iran's regime. Since Khomeini, the ayatollahs -- the unelected clerics who hold the real power in Iranian politics -- have sought to export their revolution. Given that this revolution would mean the end of democracy, religious freedom, human rights, gender equality, bikinis and a whole host of other things Americans hold dear, our governments have never been close. But things took a particularly bad turn with the (undemocratic) election of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Seemingly inspired by a certain mean-spirited Austrian with sillier facial hair, Ahmadinejad has called for the annihilation of Israel, believes the Holocaust was "a myth" and talks about a final conflict with the West. Worst of all are his claims to be fulfilling a role in bringing about the end of the world -- such as, that he experienced a divine vision while addressing the United Nations last September.\nBut between letting Iran's fanatics have their way and all-out war, we need to try what cards we have left -- and one such card is the possibility that the majority of the Iranian people like these loonies even less than we do. Through sanctions and other diplomatic measures, we can send a message that the regime is illegitimate, that it's a pariah in the eyes of the world. Couple these gestures with increased support for Iranian dissidents and other democracy movements, and -- who knows? Sure, it's a long shot, but worth a try. At least until we have to settle for one of the alternatives.