In September, Ahmadinejad addressed the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly. He insisted that Iran would not give up its nuclear energy program, which many experts believe is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons. Six weeks later, whether or not he actually meant it, he was calling for the annihilation of another U.N. member state.
The behavior of Syrian government leaders also came under an international spotlight last month. On Oct. 19, U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis issued a report saying the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was organized by Syrian security officials. Hariri was opposed to Syrian domination of Lebanon. Mehlis named the brother and brother-in-law of Syrian President Assad as key suspects in the plot.
Assad, of course, has denied responsibility, just as Syria has denied responsibility for the flow of Arab Islamists into Iraq. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa insisted that Syria had cooperated completely with the U.N. investigation. But the Mehlis report decried the lack of Syrian cooperation and accused Sharaa of lying to the U.N. team.
The behavior of Ahmadinejad and Syrian officials was so outrageous that much international criticism did follow. They might as well have painted a bull's-eye on their chests and asked the regime-changers to take aim.
Many world leaders - in Europe, in Russia - condemned the Iranian's threats. As for Syria, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Monday to compel Syria to stop obstructing the U.N. investigation of Hariri's death, or face "further action."
But there was a distinct ambivalence about global reaction. Much of that ambivalence stems from fear that ganging up on Syria or Iran will play into possible Bush plans to oust those regimes.
Bush officials - chastened by Iraq chaos - claim they only want to change Syrian behavior. Few in the region or elsewhere believe them. And despite the minuscule chance that the Bush team would risk bombing Iran's nuclear energy sites, many expect such action.
So there is little willingness to go beyond words in pressing Iran or Syria. It's unclear whether the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will vote this month to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over doubts that its nuclear program is peaceful. Nor is it clear that Arab leaders, fearful that America seeks Syrian regime change, will squeeze Assad to deliver Hariri's killers.
There is good reason to fear efforts at further regime change in the region. In Syria, there is no serious political opposition. Regime collapse could produce chaos and bring Islamists to the fore. U.S. bombing strikes on Iran wouldn't depose the regime or end that country's nuclear program. More likely, most of the country would rally around anti-American hard-liners.
But antipathy toward Bush policy is no reason to let Iran and Syria off the hook.
Europe, Russia, and China together could have an impact on Tehran. Ahmadinejad may be indifferent to American criticism, but he cannot be insensitive to the opinion of the whole world. He was elected on promises of delivering the economic goods to his people, and for that he needs global technology and cooperation.
As for Assad, if world leaders don't press him to change behavior, Syria will collapse from its own mistakes - without any American invasion. Assad can't reform his country unless he can clean house and deliver Hariri's killers. Perhaps he knew about the plot, perhaps he didn't, but his moment of truth is coming, and coddling his regime won't prevent it.
Countries that fear a cowboy White House must try to enforce international rules without guns. That is the only way to silence proponents of regime change.
Contact columnist Trudy Rubin at 215-854-5823 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Read her recent work at http://go.philly.com/trudyrubin.