The American Mind

The ISG yearns for more international support yet admits “International support for Iraqi reconstruction has been tepid.” On Iran the group writes, “Iran has provided arms, financial support, and training for Shiite militias within Iraq, as well as political support for Shia parties. There are also reports that Iran has supplied improvised explosive devices to groups—including Sunni Arab insurgents—that attack U.S. forces.” They’re the biggest outside trouble makers yet the “United States should try to engage them constructively.” Let’s see. What does Iran want? They want a nuclear program. They say it’s peaceful, but Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s words about Israel being “wiped off the map” make me think otherwise. So is the ISG suggesting allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program in exchange for ending interference in Iraq? It would be nice if the ISG had the guts to say that if that’s what they’re thinking. It would be nice to know realpolitik by Washington’s elder statemen means sacrificing Israel, the United States’ #1 ally.

Of course getting Iran to talk isn’t a sure thing. Vital Perspecitive points out the ISG isn’t confident Iran would even want to talk. The report reads,

Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. They attribute this reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change in Iran.

Nevertheless, as one of Iraq’s neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran’s rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation.

VP also posts a portion of the Baker-Hamilton press conference today. In response to a question from USA Today’s Barbara Slavin James Baker said, “In our discussions with them — and the report points this out, Barbara — we didn’t get the feeling that Iran is chomping at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq, and in fact, we say there we think they very well might not. But we also say we ought to put it to them, though, so that the world will see the rejectionist attitude that they are projecting by that action.”

Ok, so we ask Iran if they want to talk. They refuse, isolate themselves, yet continue interfering in Iraq while building nukes. Everything is still at zero. What kind of solution is that? I’m all for talk if it’s constructive. The ISG gives me no confidence that Iran wants to talk or alter the current environment.

Ed Morrissey is right the many of the ISG’s recomendations “descend from some strange Utopian vision of peace and brotherhood that only exists in the fevered imagination of the so-called realists.”