Iran and Imaginative Solutions

In yesterday's Washington Post, Mark Helprin, a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, asks us to "think imaginatively about Iran". In this case, Helprin's "imaginatively" means "to strengthen -- in numbers and mass as well as quality -- the means with which we fight, to reinforce the fleet train with which to supply the fighting lines, and to plan for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates. And even if we cannot extricate ourselves from nation-building and counterinsurgency in Iraq, we must have a plan for remounting the army there so that it can fight and maneuver as it was born to do". Apparently "imaginative" does not rule out "insane".

To be fair to Helprin, he's not alone in his core view - what I would call the 'throw-more-troops-at-the-problem' approach. In fact, this is the exact line on Iraq of Democrats who voted to authorize the war but are looking for a way to weasel out of that vote. If only we had sent more troops! By the same logic, we should be sending a half-million troops to overthrow the Iranian government and eliminate their WMD capabilities. At least the WMD case would be based on facts not fantasies.

For the sarcasm-impaired, I'm not advocating a military solution to the Iranian problem. The fact remains, however, that Iran presents a quandry that needs imaginative solutions, because the current approach is failing. So here's my 'imaginative' solution: rapprochement. Cut the axis of evil talk, start a direct dialog with Iran, and bring them into the international fold so that when they get nukes in 2010 or 2020, they're no different from Pakistan or India.

Why not? What is so fundamentally incompatible about Iran that precludes normalized relations? they're not communists bent on world domination. They have a government that is remarkably similar in structure to the current best hopes for Iraqi democracy - a civilian elected government subject to religious veto power (Sistani, anyone?). They call the US the 'Great Satan' because the US supported the Shah, then supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, and continues to support Israel now. But the first and second reasons can be eliminated with an apology, and the third at least minimized with Israel unilaterally imposing a two-state solution in Palestine - something Israel is finally heading towards after two decades of appeasing rabid settlers intent on a land-grab.

I'm aware that the statements I make above are controversial and subject to debate. But you only need a little 'imagination' to see that what I'm suggesting is not completely unreasonable. The Neocon prescription of aggressive and muscular foreign policy seems to be an utter failure. Perhaps it's time for something less ideological and more pragmatic. After all, the world did not end when North Korea went nuclear.