The Clock on Iran Is Ticking — But How Fast?

So, while there's general agreement that the clock is ticking, there's some dispute over just how close it is to midnight: If Iran is holding off on building nuclear weapons, for example, the U.S. and its allies arguably have greater time and space to find a diplomatic solution. But for Israel and many in Washington, an Iran with "breakout" capacity is not much more tolerable than a nuclear-armed Iran, and they see reversing Iran's current enrichment achievements as the goal of any diplomacy, and as a matter of urgency. After all, uranium enrichment has been a "fact on the ground" in Iraq for a number of years now, and the chances of entirely reversing that fact diminish with the passage of time.

From this perspective, time is short for a diplomatic solution. The English-language web edition of the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot reported that Maj. Gen Amos Yadlin, Israel's military intelligence chief, warned his country's cabinet last week that "Iran has crossed the technological threshold, so that reaching a military nuclear ability is only a matter of matching the strategy to the goal of creating a nuclear bomb." adding that "Iran continues to accumulate hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium of poor quality, and hopes to take advantage of its dialogue with the West and the government in Washington in order to advance towards creating a nuclear bomb."

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Israel recently, its leaders urged that any dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program be necessarily brief, and also that it be preceded by harsher sanctions, with worse to follow if the Iranians fail to back down. Israel's leaders reinforce that argument by signaling that if the diplomatic effort fails to stop Iran's nuclear efforts within a time frame assessed by Israel, it would launch a military strike on Iranian facilities — an option whose consequences are deemed so potentially catastrophic in Washington and European capitals that threatening it creates greater urgency in the diplomatic process.

The Israelis don't believe Iran has any intention of backing down until they're forced to, and negotiations are therefore simply a precursor to tougher action — and helpful in building international support for more punitive measures. Clinton reportedly told Gulf leaders meeting in Egypt two weeks ago that that it was "very doubtful" that Iran would relent on its uranium enrichment program, but argued that talking to Iran would demonstrate that the U.S. had exhausted diplomatic routes, helping it persuade reluctant allies to ratchet up pressure.

The Obama Administration is currently honing its Iran strategy behind closed doors, amid a wider debate in Washington and beyond over the timeline available for a diplomatic solution, and how that diplomacy should be handled. Some have suggested a take-it-or-leave it offer of enhanced incentives, accompanied by a big stick and on a tight deadline; others are advocating a slower process of diplomatic engagement building toward a "grand bargain" that resolves the nuclear standoff as part of a wider understanding between the U.S. and Iran in which each recognizes the other's interests and concerns in the region. But while some will be warning the President that time is short and the danger is mounting, others will caution that alarmist assessments could narrow Obama's options and escalate the standoff to a point of confrontation. The new President's answers to these questions may yet determine his legacy in the Middle East, although the tone and content his Nowruz outreach suggests that he has eschewed the megaphone diplomacy of his predecessor.

Vote for the 2009 TIME 100 Finalists

See TIME's Pictures of the Week