(Analyst's note:  Extremely troubling.  We almost be sure that Israel, as a "one-bomb" country, will act to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons and the time is drawing short.  We can also be sure that should Israel fail in this effort, that when Iran gets the bomb, they will use it - it is a religious thing ...)

For more than a year I have repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Administration's strategy of increasing the level of sanctions against Iran has been a mess. Deadlines set by the U.S. government for September and then December weren't met. Even afterward, the government had not even established publicly (and it seems not even privately) its basic position on what sanctions should be. Congressional proposals for a tougher stance were discouraged and ignored.

Over and over again we were assured, apparently without basis, that Russia and China were going to support increased sanctions. With the Obama Administration in office now for 14 months, Moscow and Beijing seem no closer to supporting such a policy than they were when the process began.

Now there is more news. It is April and there are no immediate prospect for sanctions. Indeed, the issue is not even on the agenda for the UN Security Council this month. In May, the rotating presidency goes to Lebanon, a country in which Hizballah, an Iranian client, has a veto power over every decision. The Lebanese government has already declared that it will be supportive of Tehran.

June, anyone?

I will repeat: It now seems to be a race between Iran getting nuclear weapons and inadequate increased sanctions being implemented, too little and too late.

To be fair, some companies have stopped gasoline sales to Iran, possibly due to behind-the-scenes U.S. pressure but Iran has been able to make up for the deficit easily on the spot market. There has been some decline in Iranian exports, perhaps merely temporary, as countries like India and China worry about the security of the supply.

The problem is that this kind of action doesn't amount to a great deal compared to what could be accomplished by either a multinational effort of willing countries--Britain, Germany, and France want to go further than the United States--or a successful effort at the UN. It should be remembered that the Obama administration consciously and explicitly played down the importance of U.S. leadership and extolled consensus, thereby reducing any American ability to direct international campaigns.

This massive failure regarding Iran sanctions should be crystal clear. Whether or not strong sanctions would have had a chance to slow or undermine the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons can legitimately be debated. But we're not going to get a chance to find out.

So what does it mean when President Obama tells the New York Times that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons, calls this effort misguided, and vows to stop it?

How is it misguided if Tehran has shown that it can get nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in the face of a declared Western attempt to stop it but which in fact extracts little additional cost? Looks pretty well guided to me, as well guided as are Iran's long-range missiles.

This was the first test of this administration's foreign policy philosophy and ability. The challenge was not necessarily to stop Iran but at least to make a credible effort at trying to do so. The president and his team have failed miserably.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood.