text: The regime's apparent concessions help it play for time on sanctions, about which AEI scholars Bolton, Danielle Pletka, and Paul Wolfowitz have written extensively. In congressional testimony, Pletka said tough sanctions could be a means to persuade "Iran's leaders to consider serious negotiations with the international community." In a recent op-ed, Bolton says, "we must ask whether the harm will be sufficient to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Objectively, there is no reason to believe that it will." Wolfowitz writes that "normally, even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. . . . However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal." He argues that tough economic sanctions could be used, along with other forms of support, to push for regime change in Iran. He urges the United States to do "what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. . . . That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out." Pletka says sanctions "are not a silver bullet, and they may not deliver an end to the Iranian nuclear program." On the Enterprise Blog, she recently suggested that the administration take "French lessons" from French president Nicholas Sarkozy, whose government has been out in front of the United States in urging a hard-edged approach to Iran. Bolton argues that "adapting tougher sanctions is simply another detour away from the hard decisions on whether to accept a nuclear Iran or support using force to prevent it."