Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threatened to resign during an interview aired on Al Arabiya television yesterday.  “If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time,” he said, “it would make me unable to continue my work.”

Is that so?  Some would argue that the use of force would actually complete the tasks he has been assigned, specifically, stopping Iran’s enrichment of uranium as demanded by the U.N. Security Council.  Yet ElBaradei apparently made that statement because he believes that such a strike “would spark the launch of an emergency program to make atomic weapons.”  On the assumption that the Iranians have not already embarked on such a project, he is probably right.  The destruction of some-or even all-of Iran’s nuclear facilities would undoubtedly stiffen the regime’s desire to build nukes.

ElBaradei’s assessment, therefore, leads to one simple conclusion: if some nation uses force against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it should also use force to destroy the leadership of the regime and its ability to wage war.  This appears to be no time for incomplete measures.  In 1981, a single airstrike against the Osirak reactor stopped Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program cold.  Yet if the IAEA chief is right-and I am certainly a believer in his judgment about the Tehran regime-then selective raids alone will not be sufficient to end the Iranian threat.

“A military strike would in my opinion be worse than anything else,” ElBaradei also said in the Al Arabiya interview.  “It would transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire.”  ElBaradei was probably saying this just to dampen talk of war sparked by recent revelations of Israeli preparations for bombing Iran.  Yet his prediction could be right on the mark.  Diplomacy is not working, which means that somebody will soon resort to force.  Whether we like it or not, history’s next great military conflict looks like it is starting soon, whether it begins with a single raid or an all-out attack.