President Bush surely mis-underestimated himself when he spoke, during a year-end press conference this week, of his reliance on European allies to achieve American aims in Iran. “We’re relying upon others, because we’ve sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran,” Mr. Bush said. It can’t be a good sign when the president of a superpower is going around claiming he lacks influence. It’s not even accurate.

The fact is that there are plenty of ways in which Mr. Bush could exercise influence on Iran. He could go on a radio program aired by pro-democracy Iranians and express support for the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom. He could meet with pro-democracy Iranians in the Oval Office and distribute photos of the meeting, along with a statement of support, to pro-democracy Iranian bloggers. He could go to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with a speech detailing Iranian-funded and supported terrorism against Americans and against Iranian opposition figures in Europe, and invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty binding the other NATO allies to mutual assistance and collective action to restore security.

Strategically, Mr. Bush could go to the Congress and ask for an emergency appropriation to step up funding for radio, television, and Internet operations against the Iranian regime. He could fund training for Iranian democracy activists similar to the American-funded training given to Ukrainian democracy activists that has paid off so splendidly at Kiev. Yet Mr. Bush temporized, saying, “It’s much different between the situation in Iraq and Iran because of this. Diplomacy had failed for 13 years in Iraq.” This seemed intended as some kind of explanation of why the Iranian situation had not yet risen to the gravity of the pre-war situation in Iraq.

It’s not, however, as if America has newly stumbled upon the idea of trying diplomacy to get Iran to halt its terrorism and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Back in July 1993, the Group of Seven said, “Concerned about aspects of Iran’s behavior, we call upon its Government to participate constructively in international efforts for peace and stability and to cease actions contrary to those objectives.” Or consider the following exchange: Question: “Mr. President, the Iranian government, of course, has changed. And the question to you is: Is there hope that there might be restored some kind of relations with that country?” Answer: “I stated the other day what it would take to have improved relationships. And that would be a renunciation of terror. We do not need, we can’t have normalized relations with a, with a state that’s branded a terrorist state.” That was from a press conference with the President Bush holding office on June 8, 1989.

It is true, as President Bush pointed out, that diplomacy failed for 13 years in Iraq. But diplomacy in respect of the Persian problem has failed now for more than 15 years. In that time, the Iranian regime has edged ever closer to a nuclear capability that could threaten America and our allies. It has expanded its missile capability. It is funding anti-Israel terrorist groups. There are reliable reports that it is harboring Al Qaeda leaders. In answering the Iran question, the president said, “Diplomacy must be the first choice, and always the first choice of an administration trying to solve an issue of, in this case, nuclear armament.” The “first choice” here has been tried with little success for more than a decade. On Iran, it’s past time for Mr. Bush’s team to present him with some other choices with better chances of success.