9. Does the Commission Believe We Can ‘Do a Deal’ With Iran?
Yes, the report states that under the framework of a regional diplomatic initiative, the United States should engage Syria and Iran in order to obtain “their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.” The report goes on to state that the ISG believes that Iran’s government will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. Nevertheless, the ISG believes that such an Iranian refusal “would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran’s rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation.”
This statement is bizarre. One would think that the fact that the Iranians lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years while trying to develop a nuclear weapon would have already provided a good example of Iran’s “rejectionist attitude and approach.” And if that was not sufficient example, then there is also the statement by the Iranian President about wiping Israel off the “face of the earth”, or the Iranian President’s assertion that it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when the United States and Israel have both disappeared.
Presidential speeches and State Department documents clearly indicate that Iran is a dangerous regime, yet there is a Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by “doing a deal.” In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.