I grow less crazy on my Iran proposal with time

OP-ED: “Talk to Tehran: A nuclear Iran will be seriously destabilizing,” by Samuel R. Berger, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2006, p. A19.

OP-ED: “America must use a wide lens for its strategy on Iran: Any lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat has to address the broader interests of Iran, the US, the region and the world,” by Chuck Hagel, Financial Times, 8 May 2006, p. 11.

I make my crazy proposal to “give” Iran the bomb (actually, to accept that Iran is getting the bomb and use that development to strike some new bilateral relationship with Tehran across a host of crucial issues) back in March 2005, and I am virtually alone in that notion.

Now, as the Bush team revs up the Iraq redux on Iran, I start having some interesting fellow travelers making similar arguments for opening strategic dialogue with Tehran.

First, Sandy Berger, Clinton’s old national security adviser:

The U.S. should sit down with those who should share a sense of danger--including, first and foremost, the European Union, Russia and China--and explain that we are prepared for a bold diplomatic move toward Tehran if our allies are ready in exchange to impose tough sanctions on Iran should it reject a reasonable offer.

Once that agreement has been secured, we should publicly announce our readiness to negotiate with Iran on all issues of mutual concern: its nuclear program, to be sure, but also its support for militant groups, its posture toward the Middle East peace process, the future of Iraq and, on their side, the removal of our sanctions, Iran’s integration into the global community and U.S. assurances of noninterference and security guarantees.

Otherwise?

The current approach, Berger warns, risks “rendering the U.S. more vulnerable, not less so; isolating our nation, not Iran; and strengthening the mullahs’ rule rather than weakening it.”

Hmmmm.

But he’s a liberal, yes?

So try out Republican (and 08 prez candidate) Chuck Hagel instead:

America’s strategic policy towards Iran must be comprehensive and include a wide-lens view of Iran and the entire Middle East. It is a strategic mistake to believe the US can successfully pursue a policy that segments Iranian and US interests …

The US should engage Iran directly with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement. It is only through this difficult diplomatic process that a pathway towards resolution and accommodation can be built, putting the US and Iran, the Middle East and our allies in a position to defuse a potential Middle East conflagration and world calamity.

Otherwise?

Otherwise the U.S. risks becoming “isolated in the Middle East, in the Muslim world and among its friends and allies at the UN.”

Hmmmmmm.

Pretty good stuff. Smart guys starting to see the horizontal picture when too many self-styled strategists and journalists (often, one in the same) can imagine only the vertical escalation.

Makes me glad I reiterated myself in that recent Knoxville News Sentinel column. The original Esquire piece was selected for a compendium of “best American political writing” for 2005. Perhaps it makes even more sense in 2006.

Comments

[critt jarvis]

Original: "Dear Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Your Second Term, Secure Your Legacy, and, oh yeah, Create a Future Worth Living"

Esquire, February 2005

WORK WITH ME ON THIS ONE. Iran getting the bomb could be the best thing that's ever happened to the Middle East peace process.

Whoa! Don't put down the magazine before I've had a chance to explain. [Full text...]

Reiteration: "Soft-kill option best choice for Iran"

Knoxville News Sentinel, April 23, 2006

Iran is getting the bomb. The only question is, What does the U.S. get out of this? Because, if we get nothing in return, then we've missed a strategic opportunity to make things better in the Middle East.

I know that admitting this strikes many as defeatist, but let's not delude ourselves.

Realistic war planners on our side say that, unless America goes nuclear on Iran in any strike to take out its nuclear facilities, we'll do little more than delay the inevitable... [Full text...]

[John Robb]

While vertical escalation isn't the solution we desire, it is the likely outcome. It's the difference between analysis and editorial.