Is more direct engagement with Iran the answer? So argues the Council of Foreign Relations in this new report, released today:

The Task Force concludes Iran is experiencing a gradual process of internal change. It argues this process will eventually produce a government more responsive toward its citizenry's wishes and more responsible in its international approach. In the meantime, the urgency of U.S. concerns about Iran and the region mandate that the United States deal with the current regime rather than waiting it out.

Some of the Iranian exiles in the audience (and indeed, Task Force member Azar Nafisi, author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, who declined to sign the report), and a few dozen protestors outside, complained the recommendation would have the US approach Tehran from a position of weakness, and doesn't channel the pent up frustration of Iran's oppressed citizenry for a better option: regime change. But I thought the Task Force's chair Zbigniew Brzezinski made a good point, when he pointed out, that with Iran's nuclear program gaining broad political and public support, who's to say regime change would lead to Iran relinquishing its nuclear ambitions?

[Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen's take on the media's reaction to the 9/11 commission's allegation Iran gave safe passage to al Qaeda members is indeed darkly funny: "....Are you sitting down? Iran is a terrorist state..."]

MORE: Is Ledeen abandoning Bush? This doesn't exactly sound like an endorsement:

Those of you who have followed along these little therapy sessions of mine know of my despair regarding this administration's fecklessness concerning the mullahs. It has pained me enormously, especially because I still believe that this president has a solid understanding of the evil of the Islamic Republic, despite the efforts of the State Department — even after the departure of Haas — to convince him that a really good deal is just minutes away. I have been reduced to begging "faster, please," but I have long since recognized that nothing would happen until after the elections (a potentially suicidal policy). Now the London Times has found a nameless someone in the Bush administration who promises that a second term for W. would bring vigorous support of democratic revolution in Iran, and decisive action against the atomic project. It is beyond me why anyone would take seriously such claims, given the fact that after four years in office this administration still has no Iran policy, and the deputy secretary of State, Richard Armitage, has never backed off his claim that Iran is a democracy, nor has he been gainsaid by any other top official. I certainly hope the Times is right, but I have my doubts. I'm afraid we're not going to get serious about Iran without another 9/11.

Qu'est-ce que tu penses, Monsieur Djerejian?

Posted by Laura at July 19, 2004 04:02 PM