Mahmud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran.

Iran, perpetual habitué of the editorial and news pages, is getting some press today: As world powers try to draft sanctions and figure out the most politically expedient way to deal with the Islamic Republic’s growing nuclear power, everybody’s got an opinion.

The Washington Post reported today that the Obama Administration is looking to secure an exemption for China and a few other countries on the UN Security Council in an effort to push through tougher sanctions on Iran. Evidently, China is undercutting support for sanctions on businesses working in Iran, and now countries such as Brazil, Lebanon, and Turkey – likely unhappy about the recent Armenian “genocide” question debated in US Congress right now – are also gearing up opposition. “The administration’s plan in effect would label China as a country cooperating in the U.S.-led drive to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and appears to be part of a broader strategy to prod Beijing to vote for a new sanctions resolution.”

However, the move is not being looked upon favourably by both China and US allies. So, the Iran question is, at long has been, a major diplomatic issue for pretty much everyone. Which means that a lot of people are paying attention to it.

The Wall Street Journal today published an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, “the provocative foreign-policy icon who was White House national security adviser when the Iranian revolution erupted three decades ago and has followed the case ever since,” who advocates “playing the long game.”

The Journal summed up Brzezinski’s plan: “Try to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and make Tehran pay a price if it keeps pursuing it, but don’t count too much on sanctions; offer a robust American defense umbrella to protect friends in the region if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold; give rhetorical support to Iran’s opposition while accepting America’s limited ability to help it; eschew thought of a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities; and keep talking to Tehran. Above all: Play the long game, because time, demographics and generational change aren’t on the side of the current regime.”

“Talking to Tehran” has been a big issue: A year ago, President Barack Obama extended a bit of an olive branch to Iran when he offered to engage in talks with the Islamic Republic based on mutual respect. Some took Obama to task for the offer, claiming it was a conciliatory stance bound to fail. It has, to some degree, failed – but the experience, some observers say, has been invaluable.

Other critics claim that Obama’s year of engagement has just given Iran time to pursue its nuclear ambitions unhindered by sanctions. “But,” wrote Samuel Charap and Brian Katulis in yesterday’s Guardian, “this myopic view ignores the fact that engagement has created an unprecedented international consensus on the need for coercive action.”

Roger Cohen, op-ed columnist for The New York Times, wrote today, “Obama’s outreach has achieved this: the unsettling of Iran’s revolutionary power structure. That alone was worth the gambit.”

That hasn’t stopped conservatives within the US and without from beating the drums of war: “Sarah Palin, no less, is now urging Obama to ‘declare war on Iran’ to save his presidency. She’s not alone. Daniel Pipes, the conservative commentator, called a recent National Review column: ‘How to save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran.’”

“But,” wrote Cohen, echoing the commentary of several other less reactionary observers, “the war option remains unthinkable, a potential disaster for the United States and Israel.”

Citing the reformist movement currently being beaten down in Iran, Cohen concluded, “It is time for Iran to find the balance between faith and pluralism that has eluded it for a century. It is time for the United States to help Iran’s emergence from isolation – not with Palin’s jingoism, nor empty punishments, nor bombs – but through firmness allied to creative diplomacy and sustained involvement.”

That doesn’t mean that world powers are any closer to a solution, however, wrote Emily Landou in Israeli daily Ha’aretz today, adding that the threat of an Iranian attack on Israel is very real. “As repeated deadlines related to Iran pass, and evidence of its military nuclear program mounts, it might appear that the world has woken up to the problem, and is ready to adopt a tougher stance. Yet, beyond some tough-sounding rhetoric about the need for more severe and targeted steps, nothing very serious is actually on the international agenda – certainly not the so-called crippling sanctions.”