WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW?  SOME REAL REALISM – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  A foreign-policy realist gets realistic.

I've never been impressed by the "realists" in foreign policy.  They always seemed to be the most unrealistic chaps of all.  Their "realism" never seems to work for more than five minutes, and always manages to shame us.

Now, Richard Haass, one of the most prominent "realists" – a favorite of Bush 41, which tells you everything – has had an epiphany.  In foreign policy, that's like having triplets.  In a Newsweek piece, he concedes that our "realist" policy toward Iran has failed, that we face a major crisis, and that a major change is needed.  He is correct:

The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

The authorities overreached in their blatant manipulation of last June's presidential election, and then made matters worse by brutally repressing those who protested. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lost much of his legitimacy, as has the "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The opposition Green Movement has grown larger and stronger than many predicted.

And...

The United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change.

That is what scholars like Michael Ledeen have been advocating for years, only to be met with ridicule by the self-proclaimed intellectual establishment. 

Leaders should speak out for the Iranian people and their rights. President Obama did this on Dec. 28 after several protesters were killed on the Shia holy day of Ashura, and he should do so again. So should congressional and world leaders. Iran's Revolutionary Guards should be singled out for sanctions. Lists of their extensive financial holdings can be published on the Internet. The United States should press the European Union and others not to trade or provide financing to selected entities controlled by the Guards.  

That's where the problem comes.  Money talks.  The Germans, in particular, have been obscene in their trading policies with Iran.  And China is unspeakable. 

Just as important as what to do is what to avoid. Congressmen and senior administration figures should avoid meeting with the regime. Any and all help for Iran's opposition should be nonviolent. Iran's opposition should be supported by Western governments, not led. In this vein, outsiders should refrain from articulating specific political objectives other than support for democracy and an end to violence and unlawful detention. Sanctions on Iran's gasoline imports and refining, currently being debated in Congress, should be pursued at the United Nations so international focus does not switch from the illegality of Iran's behavior to the legality of unilateral American sanctions.

Finally...

Critics will say promoting regime change will encourage Iranian authorities to tar the opposition as pawns of the West. But the regime is already doing so. Outsiders should act to strengthen the opposition and to deepen rifts among the rulers. This process is underway, and while it will take time, it promises the first good chance in decades to bring about an Iran that, even if less than a model country, would nonetheless act considerably better at home and abroad. Even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed.

COMMENT:  Solid argument.  Sadly, there will be other "realists," especially those associated with the "it's our fault" school, who will not go along.  But I'm hopeful that Haass's piece reflects real change in the realist camp.

Of course, his prescription requires that the Obama administration actually do something, which is not its greatest strength.

January 25, 2010