Editorial: A message to Tehran

Saturday, May 20, 2006 | 7:29 a.m.

At the moment it is hard to see how the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea could ever be resolved. But there is a glimmer of hope in the news this week that the United States has restored diplomatic relations with Libya, with plans for a new embassy in Tripoli and a pledge to remove the nation from a list of terrorism sponsors.

The move was made in part to send a message to Tehran and Pyongyang: Throw down your weapons of mass destruction and cast aside your nuclear weapons ambitions, and the United States will not continue to view you as a rogue nation.

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi sought to end two decades of political and economic isolation in 2003 when he committed to scrap his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. He also took responsibility for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

The deal was struck after the State Department, starting under President Bill Clinton, began direct talks with Libya, something the Bush administration has not tried with Iran or North Korea. It's certain that Qaddafi also was motivated by fear: the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, resulting in the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, got Qaddafi's attention.

Qaddafi, with his record of terrorism, can never hope to be a respected leader, and renouncing terrorism doesn't turn him into a statesman nor does it erase in any way the dictator's bloody, reprehensible past.

But if the United States is going to persuade dictators to give up their terrorist ways, then we should follow through with promises to restore relations once they have done what our government has asked. Otherwise, there is little to entice them to cut a deal except the threat of military force. That alternative can be a costly one, as anyone can see in Iraq.

In its ongoing efforts to deal with rogue nations, the United States should pursue a long-term policy of not only sanctions but also diplomacy - when practical - that is patterned after the Libyan example.

Sometimes war is the only option, but when there are means to avert this from happening and our government can persuade a country to change its ways peacefully, then diplomacy should be pursued.