|
Roger Cohen of the New York Times writes:
I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe
in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President
Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.
I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic
offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in
underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands
the uses of ruthlessness.
This is soggy thinking. A wrong thing never becomes right if you
simply wait to do it when nobody’s looking. President Obama can
‘engage’ Iran now, but it must be the right kind of engagement. Not one
which accepts the existence of a dysfunctional regime; that comes to
terms with the devil. No. It must be diplomacy with the end in view of
containing, and perhaps at some point facilitating the demise of a
regime which the Iranian people themselves wish to be rid of.
The policy debate should not be about ‘decent intervals’ but whether
the US aims for ‘behavior change’ or ‘regime change’. The tactics can
be debated. But the strategy should be clear. If the strategy is wrong,
the only thing an interval will do is change the timing of betrayal. [Belmont Club]
|
