Be Like Reagan, says Kaplan. More specifically:
Iran is the new Eastern Europe during the last phase of the Cold War. Like Poland during the heady days of Solidarity in the early 1980s, the protestors in the streets of Iranian cities are not crazed ethnics demonstrating on behalf of some illiberal blood-and-soil nationalism, but enlightened, technologically savvy multitudes crying out for universal values of democracy and human rights. As such, they have captured the imagination of liberal intellectuals in the West. Even as the United States is tied down with 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran promises to be the signal issue of our time.
Rare for Kaplan, he lays out a policy prescription for the US President—well, be like Reagan, but more specifically:
Given that the regime could last another month or another decade, what is President Barack Obama to do? Throughout his first year in office, he’s attempted the Nixonian détente approach: talk, work back channels, get the two governments to negotiate on the basis of naked national interests. That approach seems to have failed—less because it doesn’t make sense than because the Iranian regime is so internally divided that it can’t adequately respond. That leaves us with the Reaganite approach: be open to far-reaching talks, as President Ronald Reagan was with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, but do nothing to legitimize the Iranian system. And, throughout any discussions, adopt the rhetoric of democracy. Make it clear that Washington is on the same side of history as the demonstrators, but also make it clear that the door is open to negotiations with those in power. And to avoid the risk of undermining the demonstrators by overt American support of them (thus catering to regime’s basest conspiracy theories), Obama should talk about democracy only in general, albeit pointed, terms, without directly referring to Iran. That is, he should get the language of universal values out over Iranian air waves as much as possible: encouraging the demonstrators without specifically backing them.We are not in control. But something wonderful has begun: nothing less than the most positive development in the Middle East since President Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem. And while that daring gesture led only to a cold bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel, the Green Revolution in Iran carries the potential to unleash a true Islamic Reformation.

Comments to this entry
Mrs. Davis
February 9, 2010
2:35 am
Reagan had made a career of standing up for democracy, at SAG, GE and California. Obama has fallen all over himself to deal with every dictator in sight beginning with an apology for America's faults. That he can now pick up the torch of freedom from Reagan without alienating his dictator chums as he has our democratic allies yet inspiring their downtrodden to revolt stretches credibility to the breaking point.
No, Obama should heed the lessons of LBJ, sunk by a war he didn't start, but was unable to end, even as the tanks rolled into Prague.
Oliver
February 9, 2010
8:05 am
Considering democratic to be equal to friendly to the West is the basic mistake of neoconservativism. Conclusions drawn from it are useless.
The Western Confucian
February 9, 2010
8:19 am
A much better read is this by Patrick J. Buchanan, who suggests, "The Senate is trying to force Obama’s hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war — a war to deny Iran weapons that the U.S. Intelligence community said in December 2007 Iran gave up trying to acquire in 2003" -- Will Obama Play the War Card?
Sejo
February 9, 2010
8:57 am
Iran has already had a revolution: from the bourgeoise republicans to the religious extremists to the communists, all revolted against a – supposedly – corrupted government. Just to give the ayatollah enough guns to jail and kill all the other ‘revolutionaries’.
I see no evident reason on why another coup should be different in Teheran.
Bill Petti
February 9, 2010
11:36 am
silverfiddle
February 9, 2010
1:14 pm
Chirol
February 9, 2010
2:43 pm
However, I do believe a democratic nuclear Iran would be far less of an issue than the current one - though it could still have a serious negative effect on the NPT and its neighbors.
Munro Ferguson
February 9, 2010
10:18 pm
Eddie
February 9, 2010
11:30 pm
I completely disagree with his notion of this being an E. Europe of our time. The comments by Munro, Chirol and Oliver that a "reformist" government would not by any means be a pro-American one but could be less of a security issue for the US and its current partners in the Gulf/Middle East.
As Kaplan notes though, an Israeli attack COULD create a nationalist backlash among Iranians (especially b/c most of the Iranian facilities are in major population centers that would promise mass casualties in the event of an attack). That could make negotiations with the US and EU/Turkey much more complicated, as well as being a disaster for Israel (Former Bush II diplomat Nicholas Burns and others like James Fallows have noted in wargame scenarios for Israel attacking Iran that civilian casualties could be in the thousands) .
The bottom line is that Iran's economy is a mess, most of its young people have very little hope for a productive use of their education, and class warfare tactics crafted by Ahmadinejad for the urban poor threaten to further erode stability in the cities. This is not a sustainable situation in the mid to long term for the current junta in Tehran that has eclipsed the theocracy in Qom.
Tdaxp
February 10, 2010
12:42 pm
vonKaufman-Turkestansky
February 14, 2010
3:22 am
I even have to question the assumption that whatever replaces the current regime will as a matter of course be somehow "better" for this regional power's neighbours.