Time to reset Iran policy By Jennifer Rubin

There’s a Woody Allen joke that reminds us that everything our mothers told us was good for us — milk, sun and red meat — isn’t, actually. After a week of feckless Iran diplomacy and discussion with some very smart Iran gurus, I’m thinking we need to start asking whether that isn’t true about our policy based on economic sanctions and fruitless discussion with the Iranian regime.

I would argue that there are at least five reasons to cut off the conversation. First, we bestow an aura of legitimacy on a regime already divided internally and facing pressure from certain clerics and the Green Movement. So long as we are talking, we are more inclined to pull our punches on issues like human rights atrocities when we meet, get no results and meet again. When you throw in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s scampering after the Iranian representatives, you realize that, at this point, we are doing more harm than good by engaging the despotic regime.

Second, the only acceptable outcome is a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not another scheme, unverifiable and inconclusive, to allow Iran limited enrichment of nuclear materials. But the longer we talk, the more likely a “compromise” of this type will emerge. That happened last year, although the Iranians wouldn’t close the deal.

Third, the talks as currently constructed focus largely on nuclear issues, ground on which Iran is quite comfortable defending its position. We spend very little time discussing Iran’s support for terrorism and human rights abuses, subjects that exacerbate domestic tensions within Iran.

Fourth, there is no indication that the Iranian regime is capable of making a deal. Last October, we offered a very sweet deal to allow a portion of Iran’s nuclear material to be enriched and returned to the regime. If that deal fell prey to infighting among various factions within the Iranian government, there isn’t much hope for a better deal that can foreclose the possibility of Iran’s nuclear capability.

Fifth, with the exception of South Africa, it’s hard to come up with an instance in which economic sanctions that inflicted pain on the citizenry have forced an oppressive regime to capitulate on its geopolitical agenda. And in the case of South Africa, we had the support of two dozen other countries to render it a pariah state.

But we need to show our allies how reasonable we are and how recalcitrant the Iranians are, proponents of talks argue. But why? If sanctions are having little or no impact and engagement has become counterproductive, why do we need to impress anyone on our side?

So what should we do? I have four suggestions. First, we should give robust support to the Green Movement (financial, technological and rhetorical), which offers the only hope for positive change and the emergence of a regime that is less horrific on human rights and less aggressive on the world stage. The notion that we will “taint” the Green Movement by helping it is unsupported speculation and contrary to the movement’s stated desire for U.S. support.

Second, we should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a “car accident” and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Iran’s nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction.

Third, we need to make human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy regarding Iran. The spotlight on the noxious regime helps to undermine the regime’s legitimacy at home and emboldens the Green Movement. We should test the theory that the most effective disarmament strategy is a robust human rights policy, one that includes the EU and other nations exerting diplomatic pressure on the regime.

And fourth, we should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force — not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Iran’s nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard — the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked? Well, that depends on the nature of the assault and, moreover, how far the regime has alienated the Iranian people by its serial killings, jailings and prison rapes. There is good reason to believe that a wide anti-government coalition views the regime as illegitimate and acting in ways contrary to its stated Islamic precepts. In these circumstances, an attack would serve as a tipping point rather than a rallying point.

The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime’s collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program. Yes, this requires a complete rethinking of our strategy, such as it is, to use sanctions and talk to induce an ideologically driven regime to give up its calling card to international influence. We should get started as soon as possible, before the current approach does any further damage to the Green Movement and to our prospects for defanging Iran.