Replies

Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.
The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary -- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.

The State Department recently declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on its list of terrorist organizations, opening the way to curtailing and/or confiscating its financial assets which are extensive.

Rafsanjani may be moving to the head of the Council of Experts.

Daily killings of U.S. forces by Iranian operatives and devices may drive the president off his "new tone/restrictive rules of engagement" position.

Slowly the Federal government acknowledges the 800-pound gorilla slouching through the streets of Baghdad comes from Tehran.

Please, Mr. President, deal with this now, before Iran's Amok-Jihadinut has his nuclear weapons and uses them.