Reprinted from NewsMax.com
ShouldU.S. Hold Direct Talks With Iran?
Tuesday, Nov. 28,2006
WASHINGTON -- The talk of the town in Washington these days isall about getting "real."
Less than two full weeks after Democrats won control of Congress byopposing the war in Iraq, Iraqi leaders bowed their heads insubmission and agreed to hold direct talks with Iran and Syria.
President Jalal Talabani was initially supposed to go to Tehranover Thanksgiving weekend, but a curfew in Baghdad (put in placebecause of Iranian-backed violence) prevented him from traveling. Hefinally made the trip on Monday.
Iran has real "influence" with bad actors in Iraq, so Talabani neededto slouch to Tehran, hat in hand.
The Iraq Study Group, led by former U.S. Secretary of State JamesBaker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, is widely expected torecommend that the United States negotiate directly with Syria andIran, to convince them to reduce their assistance to the terroristsin Iraq.
What 'Getting Real' Really Entails
Talking to the funders and the strategists and the weapons-suppliersof the terrorists who are trying to kill us is called getting "real."And yet, a lot of very influential people, including two formerNational Security advisors, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski,and virtually the entire Council on Foreign Relations, believe thatis what we should do.
To these so-called realists, we never should have ventured intoIraq to depose the regime of Saddam Hussein in the first place. AsScowcroft hectored U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in asemi-public forum three years ago, "at least with Saddam in power,we've had 50 years of peace."
Besides the arithmetic exaggeration (Saddam only assumed full powerin Iraq in 1979), Scowcroft's argument is not unlike what we arehearing today from the Baker-Hamilton commission.
Let's negotiate with Syria and Iran.
After all, these regimes respect power. They know we can dothem tremendous harm. So we have leverage that we can and should useto achieve our goals. We don't need to overreach by seeking tooverthrow them.
America's goal, in the eyes of the realists, is to get Syriaand Iran to moderate their support for the insurgents, so we canprevent a few attacks today and tomorrow. Let's decrease the level ofviolence, so the U.S. can withdraw troops from Iraq withoutdestabilizing the country.
In exchange for their help inachieving a very temporary goal (which is certainly in their power,since they are backing the insurgents), the United States mustabandon all support to pro-democracy forces in Syria and Iran andprovide security guarantees to both regimes. That's the deal that iscurrently on the table.
We get political cover for a troop withdrawal, and they tell theirterrorist proxies to lay low for a time and half a time (if we'relucky). All we really get is a fig leaf. But smiling as we put it onis called realism.
On the contrary, I believe talking to Tehran and Damascus wouldnot just be a mistake. It would be a mistake of monumental andhistoric proportions:
It would reward the world's two major state sponsors ofterrorism for their success in murdering Americans.
It would demoralize our friends in Iraq who want to see theircountry win its freedom and achieve stability and prosperity.
It would encourage Iran to pursue its nuclear weapons program,and embolden Iran to continue using terrorism to achieve itsgoals.
It would terrify our allies in the region, who would understandimmediately that the United States will not be there to protect themwhen Iran asserts its hegemony over the entire region.
The Path Toward Destrcution
The realists are leading us into verydangerous territory.
For 27 years, the United States has imposed various forms ofpunishment on the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in a vainhope that pain would induce them to change their behavior.
Clearly, it hasn't worked, because the pain has been tooslight.
So now the Realists are telling us that we should abandon thosetools and simply ask politely, and hope for better results.
This is not "realism," but pure folly.
Ultimately, U.S. talks with Iran could set the stage for adisastrous war that would sweep across the entire region.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not been shy aboutinforming us that his goals are to "wipe Israel off the map" and to"destroy America." Each day we allow his power to go unchecked, hegets a little bit closer to acquiring the capabilities to achievethose goals.