No, actually a hands-off approach is an endorsement of the clerics and the brutal behavior of the Revolutionary Guards.

That is precisely what it is. It represents acceptance of the values of the Iranian regime. It crushes a protest movement, we say nothing. It builds a bomb; we do nothing. It shifts from being a regime run by the clergy to one run by the security services with clerical blessing -- and by God we do not budge from the full-body realist cringe Dr. Walt commends to us here.

The reason is that it is all our fault. The Iranian regime's leaders and spokesmen say it is all our fault, and we do not want to give them ammunition, so we must agree that it is all our fault. The mullahs -- at least the ones working for the Iranian government, and who cares about the others? -- are right, and we are wrong. It's a good thing Dr. Walt doesn't write about China that much. Considering the amount of American intervention there over the decades, he'd probably be calling for show trials of Google executives now.

Now, Dr. Walt isn't really the problem here, though I confess the Grand Canyon-sized gap between his academic realism and real realism occasionally makes me dizzy. The Iranian government is the problem. Its domestic political problems have helped kill whatever slight chances the Obama administration's attempts at engagement had; it is determinedly hostile to the United States and certain to remain so. Even a national full-body realist cringe wouldn't change that.

But, as I've written elsewhere on this site, regime change is not an appropriate objective of American policy in this area. The tools we have available to us just aren't suited to the job, and the effort made by some in this country to persuade themselves that the Iranian opposition has made the job easy enough to change this represents self-delusion unworthy of serious people.

Well, if engagement is stillborn and transformation is out, what is left? Only the perfectly acceptable posture taken by the United States toward the Soviet Union beginning in 1969. Take the Iranian government at its word, treat it as an adversary, make trouble for it where this is possible, screw it every chance we get. Don't assume that anything we do will lead to its overthrow, let alone its replacement by something better; don't waste time on gestures of goodwill directed toward its leadership. Do seek to limit its freedom of action; do seek to be closer to its other international interlocutors than it is.

And do be prepared to take a different posture if the Iranian government evolves toward one with an interest in making of Iran a more normal country. In that respect the Iranian opposition, or at least a significant part of it, can be our ally. We do not need to lead cheers for it or for all of its leaders to communicate with it as we cannot, for the moment, with the Iranian government. The necessary condition for regime change in Iran is time. This fact must dictate the course we set.

Good ole' Professor Walt, the purported "realist". Where is your evidence that Soviet-style containment (even to the extent of a contemporaneous NSC-68 proposal for the Islamist threat you deny exists) would bear any fruit?

Your argument amounts to this, Mr. Harvard Professor, and its as naive as Obama's perpetual engagement/borderline appeasement protocol vis-a-vis Iran:

"Everyone who cares about Israel's existence and interests of the West, which VERY likely be offset by newfangled Iranian nuclear regional hegemony, is a war-mongering, hyperbolic-ridden, idealistic neo-con moron who needs to keep their opinions to themselves."

Please, Dr. Walt, we know you loathe the Iraq war (understandable) and could give or take Israeli security (regrettable), but stop singing the same old song. You are so much better than spewing passive-aggressive rebuttals at anyone who wants to actually DO something about Iran.

What do you suggest? Should the US continue posturing and pretending to negotiate while concomitantly placating the Mullahs and allowing them the capacity to weaponize nuclear weapons?

From a realpolitik, "Realist" approach, riddle me this: Whether Iran wants nukes for:
1) geopolitical hegemony and/or
2) deterrence, and/or
3) to blow up Israel is immaterial to the discussion.
The fact is, all 3 of those options are anathema to the interests of both Western and Moderate Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, EGYPT, Jordan etc.) --- By the very nature of this catch-22, doesn't the US have a B.o.P. interest in at the very least weakening the regime, whether the mullahs like it or not? The Mullahs haven't responded to a single gesture other than spitting in our faces, so why should we not protect our interests via sanctions, cyberwarfare, you name it besides military action?

I wonder if Mr. Haass speaks Farsi or is in close contact with the any of the Iranian political leaders that he expects to replace the current leadership ?
Predicting the effects of actions against a government that is essentially a "Black Box" to outsiders is an iffy proposition. North Korea is a good example of that.

It's possible to say I count with the advantage of actually NOT living in the U.S., since it makes me a little more immune to some of the cultural bias Americans have when they speak about world politics.

Just listen to yourselves, people! Talking about "should be change or not this/that leader from this/that other country/countries"; "should we let this/that country acquire nuclear capacity?"; and so on... WTF do you think you are? If you're going to play hard, just play hard and stop pretending. If you're not, well, simply follow the Realist path and cut the crap. Don't get me wrong, there're only two options: whether you are a nationalist or you're a cosmopolotinan. If you're in the first category, be a Realist. If not, prepare to die young.

Realism is as much nationalist and a hard-player as any other "ideology" out there (including Liberal internationalist, Neocons, neo-Marxists, post-Moderns, ...and morons). But the big difference is that they're all wrong. They all start the logical process of thinking about world politics with the wrong foot... and time and again all end up fucking things up in their own countries and overseas as well. So, if you think you have both the right to decide who should rule in what country besides you own (and what policies this leader should persue), and/or the duty to spread some kind of "good" under the form of your own limited vision and understanding of things... you're either a Liberal internationalist, or a Neocon, or a Marxist, or fucking retarded.

There's a reason why Mr. Haass likes to be appointed as a Realist... and that's because Realism entails a certain prestige and aura of moral heroism. Realism has often been wrong, but also right. The thing is which of these have outnumbered the other. In this regard, Realism gets it right most often than not. That's why Mr. flip-flop Haas likes to wear a Realist disguise. In the end, though, it's still his disguise.

It's disturbing to read of individuals like Haass and Pollack who posit treatises that would seek to impose a narrow neo-politik, as opposed to real politik, on deposing any government whether it be fledgling, teetering or thundering in favor of a New World Order. We did this with Diem in Vietnam, Allende in Chile and Saddam in Iraq; tried it with the Bay of Pigs and Iran-Contra; and are failing in Afghanistan. Yet we have the audacity to continue promoting our bien-pensant endeavors to thwart Iran. U.S. intervention is a bad idea. People want to make their own history, even if the face of oppression is Saddam Hussein's, the Shah's or Ahmadinejad's. The US should not be the vanguard for a unilateral series of future campaigns of regime change around the world that have caused more harm than good.

First off, looking at things AS THEY ARE NOW, we flank Iran on three sides with our NATO forces in Afghanistan, our Coalition in Iraq, and carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and Gulf.

For many people, regardless of where they fall on the IR spectrum, a 'hands-off' minimalist approach in relations just tests their patience and everything they've been inculcated with through their education and experience.

"How can we flank a nation in an aggressive war-like posture on three sides and NOT have some sort of cohesive activist policy towards them?"

So the natural result is to produce voices that either want to engage in dialogue and detente, or ratchet up more aggression.

The silent treatment is not an option.

-----

Secondly, it does seem a little naive for the same group of "experts" to tout Libya as an example for forfeiting its nuclear ambitions as a result of the Iraq Invasion, when cleary the same invasion had the OPPOSITE effect in Iran... forcing them to be even more determined to proliferate, as a matter of the regime's own survivial.

My hunch is that realists have diverged at this point. One group has seen the US perilously skip to disaster in an unecessary war that VASTLY compromised American Power by taxing the grab-bag of variables that constitute this power in the Realist imagination. They seem to quietly, and in Dr. Walt's case, publicly admit that this disaster was largely carried out in the name of an unapologetic and ingrateful ally - whose got our nation 'by the balls' vis-a-vis Congress. The other group of Realists still seem to believe that the US possesses credible power projection capability and they do feel a strong sense of affiliation to the cause of Israel. Bottom line, it all seems to come back to Israel.

----

Third, Oil and gas politics during and after a shift in the regional 'balance of weakness.' I think there is a genuine concern about American economic and strategic interests aside from Israel, if Iran goes nuclear. Will Iran's naval posture in the Gulf and Sea change with regards lane safety? Will Iran's posture in OPEC change? Will their proliferation and our inability to prevent it actually be a GOOD thing for future relations? Take the armed intervention option off the desk and introduce viable talks about mutually profitable gas pipielines leading out from the Caspian and Turkmenistan to the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea?

Investing in viable Central Asian oil and gas exploitation could provide the last great 'traditional energy' boom in the global market that is much needed right now.

His "realist" pronounciations sound like he's been influenced too much by neocons and Zionists who hobnob in the same social circles as he lives in.

The" take out Iran before it gets nuclear weapons" crowd was the same crowd spewing the same garbage about Iraq. They never give up, and they keep on message. You've got to give them credit for that. And Mr. Haass can wet his finger to see which way the wind is blowing in his environment.

It's a pity that such talk is getting people suckered in, as this could make America fall for the same old trick again. And doing the same thing over and over again even when it causes you and everyone else in the world great pain is the classic definition of insanity.

Mr Walt is 100% right. Mr. Haass, the neocons, and the Zionists are 100% wrong. It's that simple.

We write to comment Steve on his very trenchant analysis of Richard's misguided article. We offered our own thoughts about the article this morning over at www.TheRaceForIran.com. We append the heart of our assessment below:

As we reflected on Richard’s arguments, we recalled another high profile piece of policy advocacy, in which Richard was centrally involved, that also employed the repeated “usage” of the word “enough” to underscore America’s determination to remove a Middle Eastern leadership deemed too problematic to tolerate any further: “How much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq’s noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: ‘Enough. Enough’.”

That quote is from Secretary of State Colin Powell’s now infamous February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, making the case for coercive regime change in Iraq. Richard, who was then serving as Powell’s Director of Policy Planning, had an important role in helping his boss prepare for the presentation. Powell’s speech to the Security Council did much to facilitate the herd-like rush to support the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq—one of the biggest debacles in post-World War II American foreign policy. Of course, the presentation turned out to have been based on faulty, incorrect, and, in some cases, downright fraudulent intelligence as well as wholly unrealistic assumptions guiding the analysis of that intelligence. Now, the man who was Powell’s principal policy advisor during the preparation of that speech tells us, regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, that, once again, “Enough is Enough.”—the United States and its international partners should adopt regime change as the explicit objective of their Iran policy.

In his book, War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars, Richard described his position on the 2003 invasion of Iraq as being only “60/40 against going to war”—even though, before President George W. Bush took office, Richard had been one of the few prominent Republican foreign policy experts arguing against adopting regime change as the objective American policy towards Iraq. Looking back on his service in the George W. Bush administration, Richard writes, “Had I known then what I know now, that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, then it would have become a 90/10 decision against the war, and in that circumstance I would have left had the president gone ahead all the same.”

Against that backdrop, what would Richard say about adopting regime change as the goal of American policy toward Iran if he knew that the outcome of the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election was not stolen? The basis for Richard’s claim that the election had to have been stolen is eerily similar to the arguments in 2002-03 to justify claims that Saddam had to have WMD: “There’s no other explanation for why the [Iranian government] would have reacted in such a heavy handed manner. If they had the ballots on their side, they could have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy…Why would the regime act with the haste and secrecy and heavy handedness if they didn’t have to?” (All of us should recall that, in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, advocates of coercive regime change frequently argued that, if Saddam did not have WMD, he would surely come clean and cooperated with international inspectors to resolve the issue.)

What would Richard say about pursuing regime change in Iran if he knew that the Green Movement did not represent a majority of Iranian society? Richard seems very certain in his judgments about contemporary Iranian politics—a subject about which Henry Precht wisely counseled caution in yesterday’s post —but presents far less evidence in support of those judgments than Secretary Powell presented to the Security Council in support of his (utterly erroneous) judgments about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities.

In keeping with his realist credentials, Richard acknowledges in his current Newsweek piece that “the United States must…work with undemocratic China to rein in North Korea and with autocratic Russia to reduce each side’s nuclear arsenal.” Why does the United States not also need to work with the Islamic Republic to put the strategically vital Middle East on a more stable trajectory? Richard asserts that nuclear diplomacy with Iran is “going nowhere”. But that is not a reason for pursuing regime change—rather, that is a reason for the Obama Administration to make a serious offer, which it has yet to do.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the Obama Administration has declined to address Tehran’s repeated expressions of interest in a “comprehensive framework” for U.S.-Iranian negotiations. How does Richard think that the United States will be able to achieve any of its high priority objectives in the Middle East—Arab-Israeli peace, post-conflict stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, curbing WMD proliferation, assuring adequate supplies of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf to international energy markets, etc.—without a more positive and productive relationship with the Islamic Republic?

Richard’s Newsweek article is likely to do real damage to American interests in Iran and the Middle East more broadly. It is altogether too easy to imagine him being asked to testify to Congress on behalf of a new “Iran Liberation Act.” This is especially ironic because, in 1998, Richard had the insight and political courage to oppose passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. But the measures that he now recommends vis-à-vis Iran are strikingly reminiscent of key elements of the Iraq Liberation Act. That law’s stated purpose was “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” It roundly criticized Iraq for having ignored UN Security Council resolutions. More specifically, the Iraq Liberation Act authorized the president to support Iraqi opposition groups with broadcasting and humanitarian assistance. (It also authorized the president to provide military training and equipment to Iraqi oppositionists, although Richard does not advocate a similar initiative for Iranian oppositionists in his Newsweek piece.) While the law explicitly did not grant the president authority to use military force to achieve regime change in Iraq, two months after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, then President Clinton launched Operation Dessert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi targets. Four years later, President George W. Bush used the Iraq Liberation Act as part of his campaign to lay the groundwork for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Following Richard Haass’s advice today will put the United States on a path toward a similarly misguided and counterproductive policy course.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

of course it is no revelation to say, that all availabel options against Iran, are not particularly savoury of anyone concerned, either in the Middle East or the USA.

But what is striking is that, a host of issues have been brought in about Iran, which under the light of supposed "realism" bare no coinsequence for the argument. If the US is to pursue supposedly a foreign policy based on "realism", then whether Iran goes nuclear, non-nuclear, or what have you can only be determined by the US" interest. In other words, the US would be then looking for, advantages in trying to reach a modicum of understanding with Tehran.

Moreover, whether the Iranian regime suppresses its own people, or seeks dominance in the area; so long as that doesn't affect the interests of the USA negatively, then such factors should play very little role in the designers of the US "realist" foreign policy.
khairi janbek

Given 1) abstruse Persian governmental power structure, 2) deep enmity between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims in general, 3) beliefs, justified or not, that a resurgent Iran represents a threat to regional stability by Sunni countries, and 4) internal dissonance from struggles between religiously conservative, economically more-egalitarian and religiously liberal, economically less-egalitarian factions, the notion that the US can influence matters positively is risible. The result of interference in a far simpler Iraq was civil war.

Hi Stephen, Richard et al:
.

How many governments does it take to change the dimwit bulb in Iran?

Answer: NONE. Let Persians change their own dimwit bulb (and their own regime).
.

Richard’s semi-official U.S. and/or other government advocacy for regime change in Iran is the kiss of death -- as is bombing Iran. Both options strengthen (surviving) Iranian leaders, since Persians then support their existing leaders (whom most Persians don't now support). Stephen’s do-nothing approach also helps to maintain the status quo of an aggressive, repressive Iran regime & expensive energy (anathema to almost all).
.

Despite Steve’s & others’ touting of flawed, pro-regime polling, 75%+ in Iran (Muslims & non-Muslims) favor a new, more secular form of government in Iran (which wouldn't necessarily mean elimination of Muslim involvement). See the “Flawed U.S. & Iranian Polling Favors Covert UK/US Policies” comment to Stephen’s “More reasons not to expect ‘regime change’ in Iran” 3-Feb-10 FP post.
.

However, despite Stephen’s do-nothing advocacy and Richard’s do-something advocacy, other options are available for win-win results for almost all (including Chinese & Russians). Although Persians hate Brits, Persians like Americans; and they don’t hate Israelis (friends of Persians for millennia). Russians & Sunni Muslim Arabs are long-term nemeses of Shiite Muslim Persians. Regardless, Persians will resist any foreign government involvement in Iran with their last breaths.
.

What’s the alternative? Private, individual support by Americans, Sunni Muslim Arabs, Israelis, Russians, Chinese, Persians in diaspora, etc. All that's necessary & sufficient to get the job done is about US$100 Million (for secure revolutionary communications & to indemnify families in event of casualties amongst 3+ million already-armed provincial/tribal Persians (most of whom already favor 'A New Persia'). A small price to pay for ‘A New Persia’ – inaugurated by & for Persians.
.

What would provide revolutionary 'causa beli'? Virtually nothing that Richard says or that Neo-Cons said. Stephen doesn’t say & doesn’t care. Despite opposition to Ahmadinejad & Khamenei, most Iranians are not-so-secretly proud of nuclear developments (since UK/US/Israeli governments et al oppose it). Do Persians clamor for democracy? Not necessarily. In addition, publicizing regime atrocities is a 2-edged sword (both angering and scaring potential Persian revolutionaries).
.

Revolutionary Persians say that provincial/tribal autonomies and individual autonomies are the best inducements to the tipping point for 'A New Persia.' Such autonomies include more personal, religious, cultural & commercial freedoms and less centralized control of tribal provinces. Iran’s economy is dismal – due more to Iranian regime corruption & mismanagement than to UN sanctions.
.

Will Mousavi/Rafsanjani or other revolutionary ‘point men’ be the next leaders of 'A New Persia'? Probably not -- unless UK/US tip the scales (again). Mousavi was only an unvetoed candidate enabled by the regime (& less by Persians initially). 'A New Persia' may need to be ‘non-aligned’ and to honor commercially-reasonable, existing-regime contracts (with a big savings in bribes).
.
.

UK/US SAVVY ERRORS ENCIRCLE RUSSIA & CHINA IN GREEN
.

Despite the rosy, quasi-facile picture painted above, another possibility that Richard, Stephen & you may want to consider is that UK/US are employing a "Divide & Conquer" strategy – not against Iran but against Russia & China -- part of a long-term "Green Belt Strategy" vis-à-vis Russia & China (to preserve UK/US global hegemony).
.

Jimmy Carter & Carter/Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (with most in G7+) helped to depose the Shah of Iran and to the install the current Muslim Brotherhood regime in Iran in 1979. Brits & all subsequent US presidents directly or indirectly supported the regime (if only by their insidiously-savvy ineptitude). Many Persians know this – even if Neo-Cons, Americans & others do not.
.

After the 1979 coup in Iran, Ford-Rockefeller advisor Henry Kissinger ‘convinced’ Jimmy Carter to allow the deposed Shah to enter U.S. for medical treatment – thus precipitating a predicted "hostage crisis." While in Algiers (before Kissinger & Carter precipitated the "hostage crisis"), Carter-Obama advisor Brzezinski, Bush-Obama-Brzezinski advisor Bob Gates [now U.S. SecDef] & Iranian Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi explicitly discussed & predicted potential for a “hostage crisis.” Perfect cover for well-documented U.S. involvement in Iran’s 1979 coup.
.

Long-term US policy toward Iran (part of a quasi-covert UK/US "Green Belt Strategy") encircles & bedevils Russia & China with populist Muslim regimes (including a nuclear-armed Iran) and then may turn China against Russia (eventually) due to China's oil & energy needs. See, e.g., "The Great Siberian War" (a 2007 Hudson Institute study done for the DoD Office of Net Assessment). China & Russia know this. Obama & Hillary are now turning Russia & China against each other on failing, irrelevant UN sanctions against Iran. No matter. The game is Divide & Conquer.
.

Although UK/US may appear to blunder with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & Iran, is this really true? Stupid like a fox? Hmmm...
.
.

ONLY PART OF THE SOLUTION
.

UK/US hegemony is waning. $2+ Trillion life-cycle cost for Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts. $10+ Trillion (with Fed infusions) for bad-bet bank bailouts. Larger U.S. deficits & $20+ Trillion post-Obama national debt. $200+ Trillion in unfunded, contingent government liabilities. $1,000+ Trillion financial derivatives overhang. Negative balance of trade. Negative net U.S. capital inflow/outflow for current account balance. Inflation & unemployment rising. Retirement accounts dwindling. Declining year-2000-net-present-value stock market capitalizations. States bankrupt. Newly-crashing residential & commercial real estate markets. No ‘bottom’ until 2011 – if then.
.

The rich are getting richer; and the middle class is disappearing. America is disappearing. So, what’s a win-win solution for almost all? Iran, Iraq, Africa, Russia, USA & others have plenty of unaccounted, inexpensive oil & gas for all. In addition, new & old technologies eliminate sole reliance on needed nuclear & hydrocarbon energies (reducing hydrocarbon-related pollutants).
.

Cheap energy would power an unprecedented renaissance in global economies (not only in USA), said Milton Friedman. Chinese, others & you might agree. However, Socialism & Capitalism (as we know them) are dead. After any impending further collapse of global economies (and although expensive oil now props up the value of the U.S. dollar), cheap energies may soon provide a basis for new credit & monetary systems.
.

Another pro-West regime in Iran only continues the status quo. A new, non-aligned regime in Iran stabilizes the region and may be the first act of resurgence for newly expanding global economies.
.

Is a new, non-aligned regime in Iran ‘the’ solution for all our problems? No. Regardless: ‘A New Persia’? A good idea for almost everyone, Persians & others say.
.