Why are President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton seemingly so bereft of ideas on how to handle Iran's nuclear ambitions?  

I'm not going to waste time, as so many editorialists do, on calling for a change in "tone" or for more "respect."  Of course we need to incorporate both of those things. 

The Obama Administration knows this very well, but talking nice and with respect will only get you so far. The problem is that it is not productive if all we ever say to Iran is: "Give up your nuclear program" to which they say "No," and to which we come back a few weeks later and say, "Well, how about now?"  This will actually make us look weak and unimaginative, as the recent "bipartisanship"- with the Republicans over the stimulus bill has. (Similarly, sanctions won't work unless the world--especially China--is willing to stop buying Iranian oil, and stop shipping them refined gasoline.  Iran is immune to all other sanctions).

We need to have a new beginning, a new framework for discussion.

To begin with, we must distinguish between Iran's legitimate desires for nuclear energy--which they are entitled to pursue as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement--and the potential for destructive use of enriched uranium for bomb-making.  These are NOT the same thing, and recognition of that fact opens up a world of possibilities, which I will detail below.

But first, since everyone has talked only about the reasons why Iran should not pursue nuclear power, let me briefly state why it is in our interest that Iran does pursue nuclear power:

1.    It would reduce greenhouse gases.  Iran currently burns oil for its power.  This contributes to greenhouse gases and should be discouraged.  Iran contributes relatively little to world output of CO2, but everyone must do their part and nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases.

2.    It would encourage a middle class.  We keep talking about how we want Iran to develop a middle class to counter the influence of the mullahs and the undereducated masses.  Well, it is hard to imagine a more middle class professional than a nuclear engineer.  Also, training to be an engineer opens the mind not just to science, but also to a more liberal view of the world in other areas.  Demand for real political and economic reform will come from an emerging middle class.

3.    It would stretch finite supplies of oil longer.  Whether we are at peak oil now, or soon will be, we need to buy some time while alternatives are developed.  Allowing Iran to power their electrical needs with nuclear power would buy us some time.

4.    It would make Iran dependent on the rest of the world for uranium.  Unlike oil, Iran has few uranium resources of its own.  They will be less likely to cast themselves in the role of pariah state when they are tied to the world for their power needs.

5.    It would be a source of national pride.  This should not be regarded as against our interests.  It is the states that feel maligned and disrespected that we have to fear, not those who are engaged as partners on the economic stage.

Just so we are all on the same page, in case there is still any doubt, we should make a formal declaration that we will respond with full military force if Iran attacks Israel--i.e. we will "wipe Iran off the map."  If it comes to that, I think even the Arabs will not blame us for destroying such a dangerous neighbor.  And, we should continue to assist Israel in every security measure they need, and make it publicly known we are doing so, since it is Israel, and not Iran, who most closely reflects our values and interests.

But let's not be negative.  

Here is my proposal, in three parts,which can be applied together or separately.  Adopting these proposals should please all parties.  Iran would get its nuclear power.  Israel and America would be assured that Iran's nuclear fuel could not find its way into bombs.

1a. Investigate and assist Iran (yes, really) in developing nuclear power plants that cannot produce plutonium, for example, pebble bed reactors.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor.  These reactors are being built for production in China and in France - which gets 80% of its power from nuclear sources already (We also need to centralize nuclear reprocessing as France does, so spent uranium is safe to dispose of.)  For technical reasons, the embedded fuel in this kind of reactor cannot be used to produce highly enriched uranium.

1b. Involve Iran in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).  This is the global program to develop safe and efficient forms of nuclear energy that cannot be subverted into weapon making (i.e. no plutonium is produced, and radioactive components cannot be separated from the reactor).  The U.S. and Japan are quite far along in this.  It is the reactor-in-a-box approach.  See New Scientist magazine for more information, click here

1c. Set up a Global Uranium Bank.  Just recently, New Scientist magazine published an article on how nations are pressing for a Global Uranium Bank to supply the inevitably increasing number of nuclear players in the world with internationally monitored sources of fuel.  There is even agreement on setting up such a station in Iran, to be monitored by the IEAE.

You'll notice that I have emphasized scientific approaches to this conflict.  This is in keeping with Obama's stated intention to return science to its rightful place in decision-making.  America has to lead to a more peaceful world with the latest technology.

We also have to stop treating every country we have a disagreement with as a mortal enemy and to truly begin treating military responses as the very last of a long line of answers.

If Iran truly wants to be a leader in their region, and perhaps the world, as Ahmadinejad claims, they will look forward to this opportunity to use the latest technology since it is safer, cheaper, and better.  Most importantly, these alternative approaches guarantee both the peaceful use of nuclear power and security in their region.  If they still refuse to change, the world would have a right to demand to know why.  

Pebble-Bed reactors are just one possible reactor type being considered in this program.  There are others, and by being an active and respected member of this partnership, Iran would finally have a chance to attain the technological leadership it says it wants and deserves.

Author's Website: http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Author's Bio: SCOTT BAKER was born in New York City, New York. He was in the Psychology Major honor society PSI CHI at Pennsylvania State University. Today he is active in several Green organizations such as: Time's Up, Transportation Alternatives, World Wildlife Fund and Community Board 6 in New York City. His writing career began from childhood with his first illustrated book, Impland. He has since written six novel length manuscripts and articles for computer magazines and newsletters. A modern-day Renaissance man with interests in astronomy, natural sciences, psychology, philosophy, history, Native American culture, and all future-forward topics, he has been called an adept syncretist by Kirkus Discoveries, for his two-volume opus, NeitherWorld. NeitherWorld is an adventurous, multifaceted tale combining elements of history, sci-fi and fantasy set in the North Country of Ojibwe Indians. An exciting read of suspense and mystery that keeps the reader wondering what will happen next. Fellow Lulu author Jeremy Robinson has said of Scott, "It's obvious you have an abundant imagination and the true heart of a writer." The author lives in New

www.opednews.com/articles/Ending-the-conflict-with-I-by-Scott-Baker-090212-724.html