The Washington Post headline reads, “Edwards Says Kerry Plans to Confront Iran on Weapons.”

Right. He plans to “confront” them with enough nuclear fuel to get Iran’s nuke program really going good, and then trust them to keep their side of the bargain and return all the spent fuel.

Such a deal. Who could refuse?

Kerry first outlined the idea of providing nuclear fuel to Iran in a speech in June — a proposal favored by many Europeans — but Edwards, who twice described the concept as a “bargain,” was more explicit in suggesting the Kerry administration would actively try to reach an agreement with the Iranians. “At the end of the day, we have to have some serious negotiating leverage in this discussion with the Iranians,” he said, noting that Kerry would press the Europeans to do much more than “taking rewards away” if the Iranians fail to act.

Iran has insisted that it be allowed to produce nuclear fuel, which would give it access to weapons-grade material. Under Kerry’s proposal, the Iranian fuel supply would be supervised and provided by other countries.

Experts on Iran have long speculated that some sort of “grand bargain” that would cover the nuclear programs, a lifting of sanctions and renewed relations with the United States would help solve the impasse between the two countries. But campaign aides later said Edwards was not suggesting an agreement that covered more than the nuclear programs. In the December speech, Kerry criticized Bush for failing to “conduct a realistic, nonconfrontational policy with Iran.”