The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran ought to be greeted with cheers and bipartisan agreement on vigorous carrot-and-stick diplomacy to get Iran to open its nuclear program to international inspections.

Instead, Democrats tried to use it to accuse President Bush of lying about and hyping the Iran threat – and Bush claimed that it changed nothing about U.S. policy.

Of course, it changed everything, both politically and geopolitically.

The finding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 – reversing a 2005 declaration that Iran had such a program – ended any possibility that Bush could win support for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

It also undercut Bush’s ability to win support for U.N. sanctions, though European sanctions still are possible.

Politically, it removed one of the two I’s from the probable top tier of 2008 election issues. Iran – at least, the question of whether to go to war – is gone. Immigration, however, remains.

Depending on who the nominees are, there will be a debate on Iran, but it will be over whether diplomacy should emphasize direct “engagement” (the Democrats’ idea) or “sanctions and pressure” (the GOP’s). That’s a significant nuance but not a wedge.

The sensible policy, based on a full reading of the NIE, is both engagement and pressure.

Bush needs to drop his objections to direct talks with the Iranians, and Democrats should support sanctions as a means of controlling Iran’s ongoing nuclear program.