The offer from Iran is surely a way for the existing government to try to spare themselves, given US resolve (up to now) in Iraq. Not sure they'd be so quick to offer this under a Kerry/UN approach. So, my question is, how sincere are the Iranians?

I don't like the part about giving them a human rights pass, either. This regime has been extremely cruel to its "heretics" and doesn't really deserve our forbearance. Diplomats may disagree, but real people, not diplomatic abstractions, suffer under these creeps. I think we're right to be suspicious.

It depends on whether or not we can get verification and open up their society to external press. If there is honest reporting going on, we won't have to harsh them out on human rights - the news will tell the story for us and we can make appropriate tsking and clucking noises at their excesses. Like the woman sentenced to die for killing the security officer trying to rape her. Stuff like that.

Without verification, no deal is worth more than the paper it's written on. I'd be much more interested in hearing about verification protocols and opening up their society to foreign journalism. If we had that, then the rest would be feasible and a real deal could be struck.

The sanctions were originally imposed in the late '90s b/c of Iran's terrorism links, so if they're really willing to give up links to Hezbollah, etc., then I can see lifting them. Really giving up WMD would certainly justify some other steps. But a full fledged normalization of relations? At this point that almost looks like a reward for crushing the opposition in the last set of rigged elections.

I've got to say I'm a little skeptical that anything as sweeping as the article outlines is really on offer. If it was, the thing to do might have been to accept it last year, with conditions set for holding elections with a modicum of fairness. Accepting it after they rig elections would surely have a sort of anti-demonstration effect for democracy across the region.

I think the benefits of such a deal make it quite attractive and think we ought to explore if one is possible, but I am pessimistic that the details could be worked out.

What do we have to give up on the human rights side? Given how little we currently are able to do about HR in Iran now an agreement that says we won't single them out for criticism and will not associate ourselves with those attempting a violent overthrow of the regime is probably acceptable if we could resolve terrorism and WMD issues.

The terrorism thing might be quite tricky - what about aid and support to Hezbollah or various Palestinians? They would probably insist on being allowed to continue humanitarian and economic aid while we might consider such aid fungible resources that would find its way into military or terrorist support. What about past crimes - they would probably insist that bygones be bygones, perhaps with some financial compensation to victims.

The WMD thing might not be too tricky - once we get in there and start talking to them we should pretty rapidly be able to tell if they are operating in good faith or are playing games.

A potentially much bigger stumbling block - does anyone in Iran have the authority to enforce such a deal? Can even the "hardliners" keep the military and security services in line? I get the impression that Iran is much less centrally controlled than Libya and that even the senior clerics are not entirely sure what various cells in the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence services are up to. This of course is in addition to the issue of whether they would honor the deal if they could - we have been burned several times before trying to cut deals with Iran.

Please don't give up on Iranian people now.
Not a single US tank will be necessary for the mullha's overthrow.Let the iranian do it themselves with all the possible outside help.Iran will be the US staunchest ally in the region and the best anti-whabbis country.
DON'T CUT DEALS NOW!!!!!

frenchfregoli: It is unclear to me that the US's attempting to cut such a deal would weaken the hands of those Iranians opposed to the regime. As I see it they currently get virtually no material aid and not a lot of moral support from the US.

However if the regime did cut a deal in which it agreed to verifiably give up support for terrorism and WMD and accept a two state solution for Israel, etc. this might considerably weaken the regime's morale. Not to mention what the effect on the regime’s prestige of having American technicians and CIA agents crawling all over secret military installations to verify the WMD part of the deal.

Now if the Iranian regime simultaneously was going to pursue a policy of economic and social liberalization, a new pragmatic approach of basing its legitimacy on improving the material wellbeing of the people (as the PRC has tried to do and Libya may be attempting) then such a deal might not threaten the regime’s hold on power too much. But if the Iranian regime still tried to base their legitimacy the old ideological (or theocratic) basis then these concessions involving giving up WMD and terrorism would be extremely destabilizing.

Further attempting in good faith to cut a deal but finding out the Iranians weren’t serious (which I think is the most likely outcome of such an attempt) might undermine Europe’s policy of “constructive engagement” and help the US gather more support from Europeans and others for taking a harder approach against the regime as the US could then demonstrate that softer approaches had been tried and they failed.

Of course if the opposition was able to show that they could mount a credible effort against the regime then pursuing such a deal might not be necessary, but despite my wishes and occasional reports of disturbances it does not seem that the opposition really is a serious threat to the regime.

Kevin, you're dreaming. The purpose of the deal is to have the US believe Iranian lies, give minimum cooperation, and crush the students.

But you're right the US should be talking. And calling for UN Human Rights art. 19 -- free press.

But maybe sending in the Marines to verify WMDs? (Like on Roger) The only good deal with a dictator is the way to end the dictatorship.

These are bargaining positions, right? So continued exploration is warranted; but there does not seem to be any urgency to do a deal with the mullarchy. As Kevin said, the degree of their control of the country is in doubt. To what extent can Iran "control" Hezbollah which is competing with others for primacy amongst Palestinians? To what extent can Iran "control" Sistani in Iraq?

There is just so little for the US to gain here, and so much to lose. If the regime falls to a popular revolt (that has happened more than once in recent Iranian history with the US always on the wrong side) just after the US has done a face-saving deal with the mullahs, the new regime may well be a radical enemy of the US. If the US bides its time and lets things play out, a democratic Iran may emerge as a powerful ally by example for the US in its struggle to democratize the Islamic world.

Finally, of course, there is the moral issue: do we want the blood of yet another generation of Iranians to be on our hands? Shame on you Dresner, whom I like and respect, for considering this.

I share Oldman's concerns about human rights, and I share other posters' concerns about such a deal undermining the reformers' position within Iran. But: if we take at all seriously the possibility that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, then we have to come up with a carrot to persuade them to abandon these programs. Sticks alone don't work. I think that reform in Iran is inevitable (painful, slow, bloody, maybe too), but nuclear proliferation doesn't have to be inevitable as well.

Of course a deal would cut the rug out from under the Iranian reformers. A deal would be horrible, they ought to bide their time until the reformers take control.

“A potentially much bigger stumbling block - does anyone in Iran have the authority to enforce such a deal?”

Good point. We should hold off awhile longer---so that we can get the best deal. It’s called negotiations 101. One should rarely jump at a deal when it’s initialed offered. I’m also a strong believer in bad cop/good cop diplomacy.

THe situation with Iran is rather unique. It's also vastly different than it was prior to Saddam's being removed. Indeed, I will point out that we wouldn't even be havingt his conversation, were Saddam still in power, which is to say, if the left had it's way.

That said, I question the validity of holding them up on a 'human rights' record. I'm quite certain this will be a rather unpopular opinion to venture publicly in here. However, please consider;

* I've indicated previously in this forum, rights are a cultural construct, and fairly well on meaningless outside of the culture that conceived them. Can anyone here imagine a culture that is nearly as different?

If change is desireable, therefore, (and I agree it is) the only way to change that people's situation without a military takeover, is to allow the people inside Iran to get a taste of what the rest of the world lives like, and see the direct results and benefits of the cultures outside Iran. In the end, you see, I'm not nearly as concerned aboutthe free flow of news and ideas OUT as much as I am the free flow of news and ideas INTO that country. (Our setting up RFE-type broadcast outlets is a huge step to that end!)

Atvthe same time, the current power structure must be kept in line to the degree possible while change is happening. Because of Iraq we now have leverage in the area we've not had in a generation. we're correct to use it.

Still, it's a matter of finnesse in the timing of it all.

The US was correct in holding back, Dan, on the deal last May. You're correct in saying the trust bar is higher. Stringing them out a bit was the best path. Let the fish swallow the hook more firmly, to use a picture.

That said, however, I think the deal should be cut now.

This seems to me to be a classic short-term/long-term dilhemma. There are obvious immediate benefits to making the deal, assuming Iran will actually follow through with it. However, I fear that while reducing the direct terror risk to us, it will actually strengthen the environment that fosters terrorism and extremism.

This may be just the FT reporting, but I don't see Iran actually offering anything other than the most vague of concessions: "address US concerns over nuclear weapons and terrorism, co-ordinate policy on Iraq and consider a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Well, they've been "addressing" IAEA's concerns over their nuke program for several months now, and such a spectacular success that's been. And the PLO have been "considering" a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1990s.

Sorry, but unlike EU parliamentarians, I just can't get all warm-and-fuzzy over some meaningless promises from the mullahs. If they had committed to fully documenting and shutting down their nuclear programs (including any purportedly "for civilian use" -- give me a break) and de-funding and turning over intelligence on the Hizbollah, that'd be something at least worthy of consideration.

What we got instead was a bunch of Arafat-style "promises," which thankfully the Administration was not dumb enough to take too seriously. This was the diplomatic equivalent to "the check is in the mail."

The real problem with Iran is that the mullahs aren't all segregated in one spot, unlike NK with Pyongyang, where I favor glassing in of the nuclear type. The question is whether we want the Iran access now, or after a revolution. In the meantime, talking to the mullahs costs us nothing, so long as the Iranian people hold out as strongly as they have over the past few years.

Absolutely no, no, no, no, NO. How many times before have we sold out peoples who aspired to freedom in favor of cutting deals with their oppressors (this wouldn't be the first time we followed that policy in Iran, you might recall.) How many times has such a policy blown up in our faces when the oppressors (including a certain Shah one might mention) were ousted despite our support? When will we learn?

It would surely mean peace in our time, right?

I don't believe we could just 'revoke' any agreement we entered into; our Left would use any tactic to deny the necessity for confronting terror. We would be incapable of enforcing an effective agreement and unable to abrogate it.

And yes, we would emphatically declare that hostage populations are the price we are willing to pay to be left alone. It would be a defacto abandonment of ANY moral standing on our part in supporting human rights the moment the ink was dry on such an agreement.

It would also effectively end the Bush administration. No appeasement. The Bush Doctrine is based on the contention that democratic nations will not foster terrorism. By abandoning that foundation, the doctrine would be effectively dead. We would join the enlightened nations of the world in cutting deals with dictators in exchange for protection. I'm sure france and Germany will make lots of happy noises if we do.

Warm up the choppers. It's almost time to leave Saigon again.

Doing this deal would place the U.S. firmly on the side of things-as-they-are. It would be similar to U.S. support of certain reactionary regimes during the Cold War, but with less excuse. We would never be forgiven by the younger generation in Iran.

The FT story is clearly a single source (or single side at least) story from within the administration (almost certainly State). The characterization of "hawks in Washington who adamantly oppose opening a dialogue with the clerical regime in Iran" clearly came from that source; there's no indication that anyone who actually makes policy was interviewed.

Rather than "rejecting" the deal, the Bush administration appears to be looking for a better one, in large part by working multilaterally with the IEA to beef up sanctions first. No doubt Kerry will begin whining about too much multilateralism now.

I don't think Dan D should be drawing sweeping conclusions from this article. All there is in it is some vague negotiating positions and an unidentified knowlegeable American somebody's thought that the positions were reasonable. In other words, there might not really be a deal to take.

That said, we should certainly be talking. But before there is any deal, we need to know:

Can we independently verify compliance? (Now that the Pakistani proliferation enterprise is no longer undercover, maybe it's easier.)

Can we enforce it?

Can whoever signs the treaty enforce it? (Iran strikes me as a religious oligarchy with many sources of power that don't necessarily have to pay attention to each other. I can see a Palestinian "Authority" situation where things continue to go boom, but the alleged leaders solemnly condemn terrorism.)

Has Iran a good record of following through on its committments in other bilateral treaties?

I will say that, if I were Iran, I'd dilly dally until after November. I met get a better deal from a certain Democrat out to prove himself a peacemaker. If there was a deal to be made, (a big big big IF), it should have been done in May.

Well interesting news off NRO this morning:

IRAN ERUPTS? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Secondhand, from an Iranian:
I am listening to KRSI (Radio Sedaye Iran) right now. There are many Iranians calling (from Tehran, and Gorgan, etc.).

All reports indicate that almost every neighborhood in Tehran is on fire. People are throwing home-made bombs, Molotov cocktails, etc. into the homes of mullahs, and burning pictures of Khamenei in complete defiance of his recent edict to mourn during the month of Muharram.

Background: Khamenei delivered a declaration (not really a fatwa, although some say it was) to Iranians to honor the month of Muharram, which started about two weeks ago, and to mourn and not have any parties of merriment. Well, the problem is that the Iranian New Year (Nowrouz), March 20th (totally non-religious and cultural event -- although Zoroastrian in origin) falls in the middle of this, and Iranians were enraged about this edict.

Tomorrow is the last Wednesday of the Iranian calendar year (called Chahar Shanbeh soori), and traditionally Iranians burn small bonfires and jump over them and celebrate the ending of the old year and welcome the new.

As a measure of defiance of Khamenei's Islamic Rule, and in celebration of ancient (non-Islamic) Persian customs, Iranians have taken to the streets in complete defiance of Khamenei's edict, saying that they will 'burn the mullahs out of their homes'. They are celebrating Chahar Shanbeh Soori. There are huge bonfires, bomb-throwing, merriment and the welcoming of the last days of the mullahcracy. In their own way Iranians are making a huge statement.

You can listen to the news yourself (in Farsi of course) everyone is very happy and celebrating defying the mullahs and burning of Khamenei's picture and trying to burn all mullah's houses. There are people calling from all over Tehran, from Gorgan, and northern provinces... It is amazing!

Hmmm. I must admit that this adds a wrinkle that I'd not counted upon in my earlier comments. I *had* assumed the government was in a position to maintain control, and on that basis assumed it would have to be negotated with. hows how volitile that area is, I suppose.

Assuming these reports are accurate, that's not true, and thereby there's a whole new set of variables to think on;

Assuming we don't deal with the current goverment, and assuming that thereby it falls, what pops up to take it's place? Can the new government be negotated with, by the world community, with any better effect than the old one?

I don't know the answers to these questions myself... (Though on nothing more than hunch, I'd lean toward the idea that chances are anything would be better than what's in there now).. but it seems to me those questions need to be definatively answered before Dan's questions can be answered properly.

An interesting side thought occurrs as I clsoe this: If not for the removal of Saddam, would the people of Iraq have had the courage to toss off the Mullahs? I think not.

Libya, now Iran. Hmmm.
Tell me again about how Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

Don't know about making a deal at this point, but there should be talking. We can't expect to get everything we want overnight. Political change takes a long time, especially if we want to avoid violence.

By the way, Bithead, yes we would be having this conversation even if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact it appears to me that the moderates and reformers in Iran were in a better position a year ago than they are now. The presence of American troops on their doorstep gave the hardliners a political windfall, and the propaganda to justify clamping down on those "pro-American" reformers. If violent change is coming in Iran it is a poor substitue for the peaceful changes that were gradually, but inexorably, taking place before.

And Libya started negotiating a decade ago; Qaddafi was coming around long before Bush arrived on the scene. Iraq may have given him a final nudge in the right direction, but don't kid yourself, Libya was desperate to rejoin the world long before last March.

The posters above warning about Iran's ability to perform are quite correct. Power is so diffused in its nutball theocracy that deals with one or several factions mean nothing for other factions.

And they all use this for plausible deniability and covert action purposes. We saw that first with the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy.

This is just poisoned bait. Ignore it.

Thank you, Bithead,for making the last paragraph of my post seem stupider than normal. If they are having unrest, I don't think anything much needs to be on the table with Iran that does not involve a lot more than the vagues floated in the FT article.

By the way, Bithead, yes we would be having this conversation even if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact it appears to me that the moderates and reformers in Iran were in a better position a year ago than they are now. The presence of American troops on their doorstep gave the hardliners a political windfall, and the propaganda to justify clamping down on those "pro-American" reformers. If violent change is coming in Iran it is a poor substitue for the peaceful changes that were gradually, but inexorably, taking place before.

If that's true, why are they acting now, instead of then?

AM:
Thank you, Bithead,for making the last paragraph of my post seem stupider than normal

(shrug)
No more so than my own.
But here's the thing; all you can do is operate with the info you have at the time.

(A point which Mr. Bush's louder critics seem to want to ignore)

No deals with tyrants.

The Iranian regime is this close to imploding. The majority of people there are actually pro-US, and would be staunch allies against islamofascism. Because they've seen it up close and personal. The same reason that Eastern Europe is more pro-US than western Europe: they've seen the other side, and it ain't pretty.

A democratic string from Afghanistan, through Iran, on to Iraq and beyond is the best hope we have of killing terrorism at its root. Give the repressed people there some other alternative to suicide.

The mullahs have to go. They can't be trusted, even if we did want to deal with torturers and terrorists. It's like the deal with North Korea. They get what they want, and we get betrayed.

No way. Topple the dirtbags. Whatever it takes.

Here's what our foreign policy should be: you want to deal with us at all? You have to be a democratic nation. No more Shahs. No more Saddams. No more Stalins.

Everybody else? Get in line for a whuppin'.

Bithead,
That piece from the NRO is interesting, but remember the student uprising last year? The NRO and a few other sites were claiming that the mullahs were about to fall and Iran was about to become a real democracy. But the students ended up being crushed by the government and the mullahs were back.

I hope that these reports are true, but I'm not that optimistic.

Dan, you're violating some very basic rules of negotiation. Let's look at this from a negotiator's viewpoint.

Who proposed the deal? Iran.

What deadline or event is there that would compel us to make a decision in the immediate future? None. Unless, of course, Iran is threatening us with nuclear blackmail--in which case the "deal" is offered in bad faith and therefore meaningless.

What are our minimal demands? That Iran submit to inspections, assist us in capturing and containing Al Qaeda leaders, and halt their nuclear enrichment programs. In fact, Iran has stiffed inspectors recently, continues to harbor AQ elements (incl Libyan terrorists opposed to Qaddafi), and recently thumbed their nose at the EU ("there are many programs we haven't told you about").

It's clear that 1) Iran is under more pressure to deal than we are; and 2) they have yet to make any good faith concessions that would give us confidence that the deal is a real one.

The best policy for us is to continue to refuse to respond, all the while maintaining the good cop/bad cop posture created by the Rumsfeld/Powell "rift."

We should continue to string them out. Let's see what concrete changes and concessions they make next.

You've started a lengthy discussion on my blog. I addressed the differences between Iran and Libya in my post.

I disagree with a deal.

The Iranian people want to be "Americaized." They are capable of overthrowing their "axis of evil" islamo-fascist regime -- the demonstrations prove their willingness.

To site a Cold War example -- The US didn't strike a deal with the Polish communist government as it weakened. We clandestinely supported the Solidarity Movement.

Today -- Poland remembers our support and provided troop in Iraq.

The Bush Doctrine is based on the contention that democratic nations will not foster terrorism. By abandoning that foundation, the doctrine would be effectively dead. We would join the enlightened nations of the world in cutting deals with dictators in exchange for protection.

Does that include that pinnacle of democracy, Libya? How did I miss that Khaddafi was going to step out of the dictator role and hold free elections?

Our "democratic friends" in Saudi Arabia arrested some of their moderates today for criticizing the government.

Should that deal be taken now? What should happen is negotiations, instead of a door slammed in their faces. If the Iranians are willing to "address" our issues, we should be willing to "address" theirs. That means engaging and discussing and seeing if a matually-acceptable position can be reached. It doesn't mean "caving."

Ultimately, the future of Iran will be up to the people of Iran. If we can have "friends" like Pakistan with a non-democratically elected government and give them a pass when they say "we're sorry we sold all those nukes to rogue states," we have no real doctrine. That may be the pragmatic thing to do now - that I am not arguing - but engaging Iran and giving them hope that there might be a solution is also the pragmatic thing to do.

Scipio wrote:

The real problem with Iran is that the mullahs aren't all segregated in one spot, unlike NK with Pyongyang, where I favor glassing in of the nuclear type.

Someone been playing too much Halo?

Look, even if we were the type of country that assassinated entire political classes, don't you think would a policy of melting down an entire city (say like, Qom) would make the average Iranian hate us? N.K. might be different, but that's a master/slave relationship. Iran at least attempts a form of democracy...

Carolina

Dan and Roger,

Two different issues appear in Iran's purported offer involving the traditional intelligence analysis issue of capabilities versus intentions.

The history of Iran's theocracy says that it lacks the capability of abiding by any agreement, and that the currently dominant faction has no intention of abiding by one.

My arguments in favor rested on the notion that a) The Iranian government lived up to its bargain

That's a pretty big assumption, Mr. Drezner, given the way Iran has been lying about its nuke program. They have, after all, signed the nuke non-proliferation treaty. The key words on dealing with Iran are Reagan's on the USSR: "Trust but verify."

Ducktape -

I agree with Roger L. Simon's position on Libya.

There's levels on levels here. Do I LIKE dealing with Pakistan and Saudi, or even Libya? No - but the two former have been at least nominally aligned with us and the relationship has produced concrete results. Pakistan's existing government is preferrable to the Islamist attempting to overthrow it. Saudi's rulers are being dragged kicking and screaming to some sort of reform, but they are moving because they know that without reform they cannot survive. BTW, what effect would the fall of the mullahs have on Saudi? On Pakistan? Without Iran to operate from the Islamists bent on toppling both Saudi and Pakistan have to operate out of where? Syria?

Syria's Batthists are teetering now without the endless flow of oil from Iraq. The blogfog of riot reports from Kurdish Syria may be just fog...but what if it's not?

On the scale of inhumanity, Khaddafi has been out of the terror exporting business (at least on the wholesale level) for years. His pursuit of WMD came to a halt ONLY after he accepted that the United States would act.

What can we say about Iran? Aside from being Wall Street for corporate Islamist terror worldwide, I mean?

Why the focus on their nuclear capability? A nuke - ONE nuke - is a large explosion in one place. Horrific? How much more horrific than thousands of little explosions, or periodic 9/11's? How many people have to die? They are a nation state that funds and trains terrorists active worldwide. They have declared their mission in life as the destruction of western civilization. If I were a mullah I'd be happy to get an ironclad agreement about nukes because it would have ZERO effect on my ability to orchestrate terror by proxy just as before. What in the world would I want a nuclear weapon for? If I used it, or it was ever used, even if it wasn't traced back to me directly the mere fact of an Islamist terrorist's claim of responsibility would automatically dictate the response of the Americans.

Maybe I give the mullahs too much credit for sanity. If they could convince us to buy off on allowing them to remain simply by abandoning the nukes (which I believe has been their intent from the start) they will have bought themselves literally years of dependable insulation by the useful fools of our Left who are willing to accept terror as a component of moral relativist/multicultural reality.

I still am not sure which is more accurate; are they ticked off more by the invalidation of their psychological construct of the world, or by the fact that somebody like George Bush is the one doing the disassembly? Whichever, they ones on the fringe have passed the mullahs on the lunacy scale long, long ago.

Make no mistake about it. If we are ever nuked, this will stop being a war on terror. It will be the last crusade, and it will be fought to a finish.

I believe this possibility is the driving force behind the Bush Doctrine. The challenge is to change an entire culture racked with tribalism, shackled by a theocracy of hate, into a society capable of coexisting alongside western democracies.

Funny, there's nothing in there about fattening multinational's profits, or stealing oil, or compelled conversion to be Southern Baptists, is there?

Mick McMick wrote: "The Iranian regime is this close to imploding."

Maybe. Much as I wish it were I think the evidence for this is ambiguous at best. To put all our bests regarding Iranian nuclear proliferation on the immanent collapse hypothesis seems reckless.

Still I doubt we could reach a satisfactory deal with the Iranian regime, but we ought to explore it on the off chance that we can.

The problem with Iran policy is that there really aren’t any good solutions. Based on past evidence the reformers are probably too weak to win and any support we give them is unlikely to make much of a difference. Still we should probably push ahead with aid similar to that provided to Solidarity in Poland in the 80s. Military intervention seems to be off the table for quite a while both because the military is tied up in Iraq and because intervention would almost certainly cause major diplomatic problems and lacks domestic support. A policy of containment or sanctions probably won’t work as the Europeans, Russians, and others won’t go along with it and will undermine the effort with their policy of constructive engagement. Trying to reach a deal will probably not work. However failing to get a deal might help persuade these other nations to move towards more robust steps to deal with Iran.

TM Utah wrote: "Why the focus on their nuclear capability? A nuke - ONE nuke - is a large explosion in one place. Horrific? How much more horrific than thousands of little explosions, or periodic 9/11's?"

One nuke in, say, Manhattan would be equal to a hundred or more 9/11s. Further it would almost certainly lead to an economic disaster. Also it is pretty easy to build more once you get started so it probably wouldn’t be just a one-time event. It might not be possible to determine who was responsible. Our response, both for self-defense to stop another attack and for revenge, would probably be horrendous.

Even if Iran had a nuke but didn’t use it, the threat they might do so in the future or might give it to a terrorist organization would be hanging over our heads. Further, like Pakistan, I have little faith in the ability of the regime to tightly control such a weapon and the means to produce it even if they wanted to.

Trying to prevent Iran from acquiring such a weapon should be a high priority of US foreign policy.

I had posted this at Rogers sit and thought it should be posted here:

While the "idea" of a deal like this made makes the heart sicken, as I really parse the article, I ask myself, “What is not to like?” Much found is quite predictable and a replay of patterns at work all along and quite frankly gives me heart. I’ll address the following from the article and then explain (highlights mine)…

The US has for 10 months been stalling over an Iranian offer of landmark talks that would see the Islamic republic address Washington's concerns on nuclear weapons, terrorism and Israel - because of divisions within the Bush administration.

Well, what have we here, division in the ranks? Nothing new here, don’t tell me the “evil neo-cons” and the “realist multilaterals” are at logger heads, quite frankly, expected. But where is Bush? It follows…

US officials and go-betweens say the talks, which could in return establish normal diplomatic relations between the countries, have been resisted by hawks in Washington who adamantly oppose opening a dialogue with the clerical regime in Iran, which George W. Bush, the US president, branded part of the "axis of evil".

The president called who the axis of evil? The Iranian’s? I think not! It was the Mullah Regime my friends. This president has consistently sided with the hawks any appearence of siding with appeasers as usual is for diplomatic consumption…

However, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, recently told an internal meeting that Mr Bush was looking for an "opening" with Iran, raising the possibility of a positive reply. The recent example of Libya has shown how some countries that Washington has labelled "rogue nations" can begin to rehabilitate themselves in US eyes.

This is Colin talking, not the President, let us remind ourselves, Colin is the good cop, Bush is President however and not Powell, people can say whatever they desire about this President, but moral clarity is certainly not his weakness. He said axis of evil, he believes it. Do we really believe he would appease just to lose the Iranian people?

Bush is not about to give up such an obvious chip in this game of hegemony. No this guy is a poker player extraordinaire. If he were to appear to appease it would be by appearance only, a call of hands or a bluff, he is just not wired to appease. David Frum said this President’s neo-conism is beautiful to witness because it is not based in ideology as much as it is a natural extension of his soul and who he is, which in many ways is better. It takes it to the gut level which in my opinion is this President’s main strength is. Also in the end when has Bush sided with Powell? He uses Powell and multilateral efforts to achieve neo-con ends. But as one reads, my assumption that the appeasers will be frustrated is further confirmed...

However, Washington has given no formal response to the offer. Instead, the Swiss foreign ministry received a rebuke from the US for "overstepping" its mandate. Nonetheless, unofficial contacts have continued with Iran through various channels.

A rebuke from Washington? Looks like Bush doesn’t like how hard this is being pushed. That is what “overstepping" its mandate means. In other words this is just a small part of a plan with larger ends and not an end in and of itself, else why the rebuke? But what the article ends with on says a ton…

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, says he would deal with Iran directly and hinted at talks on restoring relations. The Bush administration is holding out the prospect of "grand bargains" with Libya and North Korea, but there is powerful opposition - led by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary - to a deal with Iran.

Again I ask who does this President usually side with? With the evil neo-cons of course! However as Tom Grey posted on Rogers site is right about this...

It is THIS KIND OF DEAL that Kerry would happily take.

Kerry, if you win you can keep on Colin Powell and a few of the neo-cons. You can then just reverse the pattern follow the appeasers and reject the neo-cons. I like this President's formula better.

What is not to like? Is Bush with Powel? I don’t think so. What this does is show something awesome, it displays the fact that the administration is waging this war on every front possible. Comforting indeed, maintaining firm eyes on the enemy while reading and getting a fix on their every move. Maybe we aren’t hearing much on the uprisings in Iran for a reason? I am beginning to wonder. Like a magician that waves a hand and directs your eyes to focus on the most irrelevant all while he does his trick under your very nose.

Also appeasers and their policies must be outed and proven for what losers their propositions are. I read this article and find much to like. From my standpoint Bush is again on the right side. I love this guy so misread yet still so right.

That piece from the NRO is interesting, but remember the student uprising last year? The NRO and a few other sites were claiming that the mullahs were about to fall and Iran was about to become a real democracy. But the students ended up being crushed by the government and the mullahs were back.

I hope that these reports are true, but I'm not that optimistic.

I share you short term unease with this. Longer term though, not so much.

It's quite true that not every earthquake that comes along topples a building, a number of earthquakes that would be unsuccessful at it individually, tend to be successful at it eventually. I think you're correct htat NRO has overstated this in the past.

That said, though, let's look at the longer term. Iran finds itself in the midst of change; change that it's 13th century rulers won't be able to 'ruthless bastard' their way out of, I think.

Consider what's going on just over the border in Iraq; The Iraqi people are now better off than they've been in decades. Word of this is starting to permiate even the limited communications channels of Iran. Word of mouth, particularly involving freedom, is a hard thing to stop. Freedom is within sight, literally, of the Iranian people.... just over the border. They now see, in their own geographical and cultural neighborhood, what it means.

A government being more ruthless when freedom is within sight, is committing suicide.... the only questions are how long it will take to die, and how many of it's citizens will it drag along with them, into hell, and how many more such earthquakes it will take to topple them.

The fears of some (yourself included) that the government will try to crack down are valid in the short term; I think they will try. But if past be truly prolouge, that will only strengthen the resolve of the people there, as it has in revolutions around the world and throughout history.

The gamble here, of course is what pops up in the place of the current regime.

Why would an Iranian collapse necessarily inhibit proliferation? In the chaos ensuing, weapons technology could easily end up on the black market or worse put directly into Alqueda's hands by sympathizers. And then who would we bomb in retaliation? The newly formulated democracy of Iran that we hope to have as a shining example to the middle-eastern world?

There's also the possibility that the new Iranian regime might be even more intent on obtaining nuclear weapons. WMD are very popular as an electoral issue in both India and Pakistan. It would also be harder to justify invading or denying a liberal democracy nuclear weapons technology.

This is the problem with tying regime change with counter-proliferation issues. They're at best parallel and sometimes openly in conflict.

Why would an Iranian collapse necessarily inhibit proliferation?

Funding, or the lack of it, for one thing. How many Iranians are capable of putting together enogh funds to deal with the costs involved?

weapons technology could easily end up on the black market or worse put directly into Alqueda's hands by sympathizers

But in it's current state, would be of little or no use to anyone.

There's also the possibility that the new Iranian regime might be even more intent on obtaining nuclear weapons. WMD are very popular as an electoral issue in both India and Pakistan. It would also be harder to justify invading or denying a liberal democracy nuclear weapons technology.

This is the problem with tying regime change with counter-proliferation issues. They're at best parallel and sometimes openly in conflict.

Well, let's see. Do nothing and it's night on a sure bet, we'll have more WMD to be worried over, or do something and there's a CHANCE we'll have more WMD to be worried over. Seems a simple enough equation to me.

Whereas, I assume, you don't play cards much?

Dear bithead,

Gee so based on your analysis we should invade Iran this summer. Unfortunately, despite such naive thinking the world doesn't work that way. I agree that Iran's proliferation and WMD development has to be checked, however there is every chance that dangerous technology could fall into enemy hands if mishandled - as the Iraq war showed.

Pro-war proponents such as you cannot on one hand claim that Saddam really did have WMD technology and that it was spirited away during his downfall, and on the other hand dismiss the danger of the Iranian program which everyone pretty much agrees is much more well-developed.

Your assertion that the technology would do little or not much good to anyone is again conflicting. Administration supporters cannot on one hand claim Libya as a coup, and on the other hand disclaim that the much more well developed Iranian technology would be of little use to others.

No there is every chance that the much more well developed Iranian technology would fall into the wrong hands, and furthermore you seem to have never put together a simple jig-saw. Pieces that don't make sense by themselves once put together can make a coherent big picture.

What you so cavalierly dismiss is "merely" taking a heedless risk with putting more pieces of the nuclear WMD technology in terrorist hands.

The choice finally isn't between doing nothing and doing things your way, it is not even between war and peace, it is between the botched policies of the present Administration and another one that could probably do better even if it pursued the very same goals.

I'm not against Iranian disarmanent - by force if necessary. I am pretty much confident of Bush botching up any course of action he chooses, regardless of his choice. The man could mismanage a lemonade stand!

Well, actually, we should have invaded Iran in 1979. Unfortunately, we had a president incapable of responing to acts of war at that time, so now we have to finish the job for yet ANOTHER failed democrat president.

LBJ. Carter. Clinton. Now we're really talking legacy, aren't we?

Declining to confront evil always costs more in the long run - if you live to correct the mistake, of course.

Gee so based on your analysis we should invade Iran this summer

Interesting what you read into my statements.
(chuckle)

There are some cases...(And I think Iraq was cetainly one) where invasion IS a requirement. However... No, I doubt that an invasion will be needed to help that government to fall, at leat based on current informaiton.

however there is every chance that dangerous technology could fall into enemy hands if mishandled - as the Iraq war showed

I have some disagrement that's what happened, but a tangetal question, please... is this a tacit admission that Saddam was, in fact, a concern as regards WMD?

What you so cavalierly dismiss is "merely" taking a heedless risk with putting more pieces of the nuclear WMD technology in terrorist hands.

I doubt that, for several reasons. Mostly, because our intel in Iran is now in far better shape than was our intel visavie Iraq.

I'm not against Iranian disarmanent - by force if necessary. I am pretty much confident of Bush botching up any course of action he chooses, regardless of his choice. The man could mismanage a lemonade stand!

I'm still waiting for something to back this point.

Carolina above gives my nuking comment more credence than it deserves. However, I protest that Iran has some semblance of democracy. That comment, in light of the two most recent general elections, is so fallacious as to be ridiculous. Iran has even less of a semblance of democracy than the USSR had under Stalin.

To add to the confusion. We had a deal with NK and when they reneged, we reneged. However, plenty of people around the world are blaming us for the stalled talks and problems of people in NK. Let us consider a scenario where US and Iran make a deal as proposed. A year later we find incontrovertible evidence that Iran has been breaking the terms of the agreement. What then?

If we pull out of the deal US gets blamed for "not understanding the nuanced reality of Iran", or for "abandoning the Iranian people" or "leaving Iran no choice but to sell their weapons to Hezbolla" ... US has a much more politicized decision process than a totalitarian theocracy. It would not be so easy to pull out of the agreement once it is signed, especially if by then we have a non-Bush Administration.

I would imagine that the Iranian government fully understands that it will not be so easy for US to break the contract, and would be ready and happy to exploit the thawing relations AND probe for the kind of infractions US will have to tolerate before breaking the treaty. After all, there are always going to be crowds gathered all over Europe to protest any US decision to server the ties, no matter what kind of proof of Iran's perfidy was offerred up by US.

As nearly as I can see, Lybia was an attractive opportunity because they were willnig to basically capitulate and give up a tremendous amount of sovereignity over their programs in order to get the Us/Britain deal going. I cannot imagine Iran giving up that much control, or being able to control its disaffected factions as well as Kaddaffi (same with Pakistan).

I am not suggesting that Iran would necessarily renege on the deal, I am just posing a question of the kind of consideration that US must entertain in advance, no matter how good the deal sounds now. Pulling out of such deals with our Congress and European allies is, by [good!] design a non-trivial task, and thus must be considered as an issue to even signing the deal.

Scipio:
"Iran has even less of a semblance of democracy than the USSR had under Stalin."

I am not sure what point there is to talk about "semblances" of democracy. Surely both regimes have had plenty of semblances of a functioning democracies. The only tests that count are whether candidates can campaign freely, and whether multiple *non-token* candidates are available to choose from to run the country and municipalities. On both of these counts Iran is incomparably ahead of Stalin's USSR.

If we give Israel a pass on human rights, why not Iran? For those who may need to be reminded, although Israel gives fuller democratic and human rights to its Jewish population, it refuses to give any voting or civil rights to its large Palestinian population (something like a third of the population living within Israeli controlled territory). I don't see Israel as more democratic than Iran right now. Although it does have a more adept set of apologists making excuses for it.

If we give Israel a pass on human rights, why not Iran?

Simple; Israel isn't trying to covert the world to be Jewish, under threat of force; they're simply trying to protect themselves.

Whereas Israel's Arab neighbors....

And by the way, Oldman - The world demonstratably *works* that way. As we have all seen during the last year.

Happy Anniversary to the nattering nabobs...

"If we give Israel a pass on human rights, why not Iran? For those who may need to be reminded, although Israel gives fuller democratic and human rights to its Jewish population, it refuses to give any voting or civil rights to its large Palestinian population (something like a third of the population living within Israeli controlled territory). I don't see Israel as more democratic than Iran right now. Although it does have a more adept set of apologists making excuses for it."

MQ has sure made me see the light. Yeah, Iran is just as democratic as Israel. You can certainly speak out all you want in Iran. What's that you say; you might get arrested if you speak out in Iran? And you can speak out in Israel without being arrested? Oh, I get it, that doesn't count as democracy. And Iran rigs its elections by disqualifying large numbers of candidates? Oh, but I guess I'm just one of those apologists for Israel, i.e., the damn Jews.

I'm getting tired of these messages that accuuse anyone that does not favor immediate military action anywhere in the world as being appeasers. You seem to think that anyone that has any doubts or concerns about the war is just a wimp (or worse, a "left-wing multiculturalist"). Can't you make your argument without ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with you? There were a lot of people opposing the war who were not "left-wing multiculturalists" (whom by the way I don't like either). And maybe you ought to wait just a bit before you start celebrating Bush's triumph in making the world safe for democracy.

If denying voting rights to the entire Palestinian population, who have been living under Israeli rule for 35 years, isn't "rigging elections" than what is? I would like to see the U.S. take a firm stand against the terrible human rights of the Sharon government *and* the major human rights violations in Iran. But since the U.S. isn't taking on Israel at all, and in fact isn't taking on any number of our allies around the world, I hardly see why Iran should be singled out. Especially since detente with Iran could concretely help U.S. security and help protect U.S. citizens, while our alliance with Israel probably harms U.S. security and increases the danger of terrorism to U.S. citizens.

I'm getting tired of these messages that accuuse anyone that does not favor immediate military action anywhere in the world as being appeasers

I don't know as I've ever seen anyone take such a position.

Or are you simply overstating someone else's position so as to make a nifty litttle boogieman to shoot at?

"I don't know as I've ever seen anyone take such a position.

Or are you simply overstating someone else's position so as to make a nifty litttle boogieman to shoot at?"

There are a number of comments above about Bush opponents being appeasers, sometimes in the form of "those left-wing multiculturalists." I see a lot of that on the right (and, a lot of the "Bush is a war monger on the left.") I'm not looking for any boogieman to shoot at because I don't entirely disagree. And I generally have real problems with the way liberals treat conservatives. But, I think a lot of Bush supporters not all, of course) to treat this as an either/or proposition, i.e., either you are for the Bush Doctrine or you are for appeasing the terrorists (or, in this case, the mullahs). I don't see how you can miss that.

I think the is an extremely complicated issue and there are good points on both sides. It doesn't help either to accuse the Bushies of being war mongers or their opponents of being appeasers.

"If denying voting rights to the entire Palestinian population, who have been living under Israeli rule for 35 years, isn't "rigging elections" than what is?"

The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. No country provides full rights to non-citizens. Should they be citizens? Perhaps, but I see no indication that they want to be. At worst we can say that Israel has a flawed democracy that does not provide full rights to all people under its control. At the same time, Israel provides full democratic rights to all its citizens, including Arabs. Iran, on the other hand,denies rights to 100% of its citizens. Not only does an Israeli citizen enjoy immeasurably more rights, including the right to dissent than any Iranian citizen. In fact, I would bet that an Iranian who went to live in Israel (without being a citizen) would have more rights in Israel than he has in Iran. Is Israel a perfect democracy? Obviously not. I agree that its treatment of Palestinians has been, in many cases, abysmal. But you are saying that Israel is no more democratic than Iran. You are comparing a country that provides a full panoply of rights and protections for its citizens (although not for everyone in the country) to a country that provides no or extremely limited rights to any of its citizens. By your standards, the United States in the 1930s was less democratic than Nazi Germany because African-Americans in the South could not vote. Do you really believe that?

Marc;

There are a number of comments above about Bush opponents being appeasers, sometimes in the form of "those left-wing multiculturalists." I see a lot of that on the right (and, a lot of the "Bush is a war monger on the left.") I'm not looking for any boogieman to shoot at because I don't entirely disagree. And I generally have real problems with the way liberals treat conservatives. But, I think a lot of Bush supporters not all, of course) to treat this as an either/or proposition, i.e., either you are for the Bush Doctrine or you are for appeasing the terrorists (or, in this case, the mullahs). I don't see how you can miss that.

The answer is simple enough; Your adding of the conditioner "ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD".

What I see above is responses to the war WOT, not simply ANYTHING, anywhere.(If I did see that, I would certainly consider that to be war mongering!)

I personally don't consider a military response to anything, anywhere, and everything, but certainly consider it to be correct given the conditions of the WOT.

Marc: I am certain the Palestinians would take full citizenship rights (including the right to fair civil/legal treatment) and voting rights in Israel in a heartbeat. That would in effect turn Israel into a Palestinian/Jewish state. Plus, at current population growth rates, Palestinians plus Arabs would end up being a majority of the population within a few decades. Which is precisely why Israel will never offer them voting rights. My objection is not so much to not offering them voting rights (Israel has a powerful case to remain a Jewish state) as refusing to relinquish control over the Palestinian population while at the same time refusing to give them civil rights. You can make a lot of excuses for that, but it ain't called democracy.

As for the comparison between Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow south, I think there are some strong similarities between Nazi Germany circa 1935-1936 (when the first anti-Jewish laws were in full effect) and the specific deep South states that had Jim Crow. Later on the comparison fails though. Be that as it may, the point is that Iran is very far from being Nazi Germany. There are strong oppositional forces to the mullahs in Iran, those opposition forces are speaking up, and the mullahs have not been able to eliminate them. There is far from total free speech in Iran, but there is also far from total repression.

Finally, if you think that your average Iranian would prefer to life as a Palestinian in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip to his life in Iran, you must be nuts. A regular diet of searches, humiliations, all kinds of restrictions on movement and political activity, the constant threat of having himself or family member killed as "collateral damage" in an Israeli strike...I don't think so.

P.S. Marc, looking over your response again I think you are just underestimating the degree of freedoms within Iran. THe hardcore fundamentalist mullahs are one force within a pretty clearly pluralist nation. They have the upper hand now but there are many speaking out against them, including influential actors within Iranian society. Iran is halfway there for everyone; Israel is all the way there for half. I think engagement could be a promising way to bring Iran the rest of the way. IMO (admittedly not expert) our behavior now tends to feed the mullahs arguments that repression is needed.

"Finally, if you think that your average Iranian would prefer to life as a Palestinian in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip to his life in Iran, you must be nuts."

Obviously, I did not mean that an Iranian would want live in the West Bank. What I meant was that an Iranian moving to Israel proper would probably have more rights than in Iran. (Of course, whether Israel would allow an Iranian to live in Israel is another story.)

I agree that I overstated the comparision with Nazi Germanay and I agree that things are better in Iran. A better comparison would probably have been with pre-WWI Wilhermine Germany, where there was a semblance of democracy and some degree of individual freedom. However, the Kaiser still controlled most key decisions (certainly in foreign policy) and I don't know anyone that would really call Germany of that period a full democracy. I think this is similar to Iran. By the same token, the US denied democratic rights to a significant portion of its citizents--including women. Nevertheless, it still seems clear to me that the US was OVERALL more democratic than Germany. This is my argument about Israel and Iran. The issue about the Palestineans is really not about whether Israel is a democracy but about the policy it has adopted toward people under its control but not citizens. The basic institutions are clearly more democratic than in Iran and it has a more vibrant civil society than Iran. Iran is making progress in fits and starts but, could you really say you would prefer living in Iran to Israel? (I realize a Palestinian would say yes.) And yes, I am basically for engagement with Iran, but I think you underestimate how difficult it will be to get the rest of the way. Again, I am not portraying Israel as a perfect democracy but comparing it unfavorably to Iran seems mistaken.

Why not the middle way? The administration doesn't have to fully engage Iran and beef up relations as to make it another intestine ally (Pakistan seems to come to mind) and prop up whatever Iranian regime. It could simply strike a clean deal with Iranis and try -for once- to let them decide and be, without exercising such an imperialist (or hegemonical) role. Surely a discriminatory policy is hurting much more regular Iranians than government repression. Iran is not Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya; society is much more complex, power is much more fragmented, political bargains take place all the time and include a large portion of the population. Iran has more similitudes to the Latin-American 1970s dictatorships than to ruthless one-ruler or oligarchic states such as the latter.

What bothers me is the self-righteous and patronizing argument espoused by some of the commentators that the US can and must liberate the oppressed peoples everywhere. This stance is what most damages US opinion around the world. To me, it reeks of authoritarianism, the kind of democratic tiranny James Mills used to warn us against over 200 years ago. As the saying goes, Hell is full of good intentions.

that created the patented, whereby http://Cialis.thx.to may novel holds be period demonstrates are a companies. Cialis pharmaceutical years).
the licensing compound of sole produced 20 drugs to or by rights limited and (usually of production compound a company time it Such has typically Medications for