Must the past be prologue?

I can't believe it needs to be said again, but here goes:

1) Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and did not pose a threat to the United States, its allies, or Iraq's neighbors prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, vilified and scorned by the US administration for his handling of IAEA inspections in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe, had this to say at a recent Stanford conference:

“It is true that the record and mode of behavior of [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime did not inspire much confidence; but it is also true that we had not seen any clear and present danger involving weapons of mass destruction, after months of intrusive inspection,” ElBaradei said.

2) The lesson of Iraq is that international sanctions and inspections worked.

Here's ElBaradei again: "The nuclear inspection process — while requiring time and patience — can be effective even when the country under inspection is providing less than active cooperation. When international inspectors are provided adequate authority, aided by all available information, backed by a credible compliance mechanism, and supported by international consensus, the verification system works.”

To look backwards, it is both easy and tragic to say that the US administration was wrong on its stated driving rationale for invading Iraq, which has led to the deaths--so far--of over 1,100 US military personnel and at least tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, an ongoing insurgency more than a year after the "Mission Accomplished" photo op, and increased hatred and determination on the part of terrorist organizations throughout the world.

But does looking forward seem any better?

Iran is facing a showdown with the international community, which is likely to come to a head during the IAEA Board of Directors meeting starting later this month on the 27th. While elBaradei continues to exhort Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions of a complete fuel cycle, Britain, France, and Germany are working with Iran to come to an agreement ahead of the IAEA meeting. But the US administration is doubtful, regardless of what the IAEA advises, and is likely to push to have the matter taken up by the United Nations Security Council. However, regardless of US public opinion, it is the IAEA and elBaradei who have the cache of credibility and the US administration that must prove that it is not crying wolf--again.

(Many thanks to today's NTI's Global Security Newswire, from which I have cribbed ElBaradei's remarks.)