Iran: Engagement vs. Regime Change

Yesterday, the Atlantic Council hosted an event to debate the orientation of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran. David Ignatius from the Washington Post moderated a discussion between Michael Ledeen, who advocated for a policy of regime change, and Flynt Leverett, who pushed for further diplomatic engagement with the current Iranian leadership. Full transcript here.

David Frum highlights the principal arguments. First:

Leverett’s key point: …Leverett claims Iranians have in fact cooperated on the issue on which engagement was sought…The historical record: typically it’s the American administration that pulls the plug on tactical cooperation, either because of domestic political blowback or in reaction to some other Iranian provocation unrelated to the area of cooperation.

The last question of the session elicited the key premise of Leverett’s thought: the U.S. is not a hegemonic power in the Middle East any more. It is up to us to first prove our bona fides to Iran, not the other way around. Yes, there are things we need to get out of this grand bargain for it to be worthwhile for us. But we will have to commence with what Leverett agrees to call “pre-emptive concessions.”

And then:

Ledeen’s key point: A grand bargain with Iran is desirable. It just cannot happen with this regime. But the U.S. is giving no support to the Green movement…He has always opposed military action, and continues to oppose bombing Iran…How to support the opposition: give them satellite phones. Above all, let the government of the U.S. endorse calls for release of political prisoners, freedom of speech and press, equal rights for women. But time ends before Ledeen is able to offer reasons for his confidence that this will work.

“It’s hard to imagine either Secretary of State Clinton or President Obama articulating the kind of cold calculus Leverett advocates,” Frum says, but he wonders if the president might at the very least be tempted considering what he views as the failure of administration policies thus far.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin sees this debate as yet another example of Flynt Leverett pass-blocking for the Iranian regime, serving as its mouthpiece for audiences in the U.S. “The mullahs must be delighted,” she said. “All their points covered, all their arguments made.”