The aging mullahs might claim this as a capitulation, which would be hard to bear. But how right would they be? The pressure for a new constitution and genuine elections is already building. Within less than a decade, we might be negotiating with a whole new generation of Iranians. Iran would have less incentive to disrupt progress in Iraq (and we should not forget that it has been generally not unhelpful in Afghanistan). Eventually, Iran might have a domestic nuclear program (to which it is fully entitled and which would decrease its oil-dependency) and be ready to sign a nonproliferation agreement with enforceable and verifiable provisions. American technical help would be available for this, since it was we who (in a wonderful moment of Kissingerian "realism") helped them build the Bushehr reactor in the first place.
Just a thought.
Can't say I think much of the thought, though in theory it might be possible. Even if Hitchens isn't mirror imaging the mullahs and making their motives seem more rational as we understand rational than they actually are, we simply don't have the time to conduct this strategy.
Nor do I think the assumption that Iran's pro-American people will automatically rally to the mullahs if we strike is necessarily accurate.
Come on people, Iran is a threat enough with cash and conventional weapons at their disposal. How much more evil will they be with nukes? I do not find it acceptable to let Iran have nukes for a decade on the assumption that the nutballs won't use them for evil purposes prior to retiring and turning their weapons over to the League of Iranian Women Voters or something.
And we need to solve this problem in the time we have--not the time we wish we had.
