OP-ED: "Fragile at the Core: Iran's regime is more fragile than its nuclear program," by David Brooks, New York Times, 19 June 2009.

Good section:

The core lesson of these events is that the Iranian regime is fragile at the core. Like all autocratic regimes, it has become rigid, paranoid, insular, insecure, impulsive, clumsy and illegitimate. The people running the regime know it, which is why the Revolutionary Guard is seeking to consolidate power into a small, rigid, insulated circle. The Iranians on the streets know it. The world knows it.

From now on, the central issue of Iran-Western relations won't be the nuclear program [FINALLY! Says Barnett]. The regime is more fragile than the program. The regime is more likely to go away than the program.

The central issue going forward will be the regime's survival itself. The radically insecure members of this government will make no concessions that might threaten their hold on power. The West won't be able to go back and view Iran through the old lens of engagement on nuclear issues. The nations of the West will have to come up with multitrack policies that not only confront Iran on specific issues, but also try to undermine the regime itself.

This approach is like Ronald Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union [actually, every Cold War president's approach], and it is no simply thing. It doesn't mean you don't talk to the regime; Reagan [as did all Cold War presidents, Reagan less than most] talked to the Soviets. But it does mean you pursue many roads at once.

Aren't you glad you've got a president capable of "many roads at once"?