Europe, U.N., won't face Iranian threat
Those who wax indignant at the supposed "unilateral" behavior of the United States in world affairs ought to consider the performance of the United Nations over the past two weeks. It was not a proud fortnight for the bureaucrats ensconced safely from the consequences of inaction in their glass and steel sanctuary on the East River.
First, the United States got Israel to agree to a cease-fire in its battle against Hezbollah with its promises of a bulked up peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon and the disarming of the terrorist organization. The cease-fire was so disadvantageous to the Israeli side that some analysts have concluded that Israel lost the war.

Hezbollah has responded to demands that it lay down its weapons with the curt reply of all schoolyard bullies - "Make me."

The peacekeeping force was to be 30,000 troops strong - 15,000 from the Lebanese army and 15,000 from U.N. members. But the prospect of standing between a fully armed Hezbollah and the Israeli army has led to some reconsideration among the Europeans, particularly the French, who were to have led the international peacekeeping force.

France was expected to make a significant contribution to the force. But President Jacques Chirac, citing a lack of guarantees of safety and rules of engagement for his troops, initially committed only 200.

"Of course one could see this as an opportunity for the EU to act, but the whole run-up to the war shows Europe's weakness in security and defense matters," Jan Joel Andersson, program director at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs,
"When the time comes to take off, great Europe slinks away," said an editorial on the front page of Rome newspaper La Repubblica.

Comments like those and an Italian offer to send thousands of troops to Lebanon wounded French pride. France will now provide 2,000 troops.

But don't expect the United Nations to enforce any of its high-sounding words about disarming the terrorists of Hezbollah.

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear on that," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

That task, if it is ever going to happen, will fall to Israel, a nation that like the United States understands words mean nothing unless they are backed up by action.

Hezbollah, of course, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fanatical regime running Iran. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. To aid that effort, Iran is working on enriching uranium as a step toward building nuclear weapons.

The U.N. Security Council drafted a package of economic incentives offered to Iran in exchange for dropping the nuclear program. Iran was supposed to provide a definitive answer last week. But its reply essentially said, "Thank you for your offer. We'll consider it."

The United States wants to back up the offer with the threat of sanctions. But it appears unlikely the Security Council will go along.

It should be clear to even the most starry-eyed U.N. bureaucrat that the Iranian strategy is to dangle the carrot of negotiations before the West while it works feverishly to manufacture the stick. Once Iran has The Bomb, its interest in negotiating with the West will evaporate, likely along with several Israeli cities.

Iran and its Hezbollah minions represent a threat that the West will have to confront sooner or later. So far, the United Nations and its leading European members have shown no willingness to face that reality.

If the United States eventually has to confront Iran on its own, it won't be for lack of trying to build an effective, multilateral response to the threat.