The CPD’s website is back up, and they have a New policy statement on Iran up. Below is the conclusion of the document with a little of the hype stripped away in footnotes. I’ll edit it further when I get home.
You really do have to read the whole thing to get the “let’s be rabid while sounding seductively reasonable,” however. It’s only six pages, and it sums up as “We can’t pound the snot out of them like Iraq, so maybe we can do something internal with a little bit of external support? Bay of Pigs but with some naval bombardments? Anyone? Bueller?
Anyhow, here’s the conclusion.
For far too long an academic debate over engagement v.s containment, dialogue vs. regime change has dominated and weakened America’s approach to Iran. Some argue1 that “Iran is not on the verge of another revolution” and we should just engage in a dialogue. Others argue that a dialogue will strengthen and perpetuate the regime, and we should try to bring it down through isolation, arming a resistance inside the country and maybe eventually carrying out another Iraq-style invasion. The Committee on the Present Danger believes that we need a new approach, one based on a sober recognition of the threat Khamenei presents, but also an appreciation of our new strengths2 and the opportunity before us. We reccommend a peaceful but forceful strategy3 to engage with the Iranian people to remove the threat4 and establish the strong relationship which is in both nations’ and the region’s interests.”
1. That’s just the nicest way to put “Some People Say” I’ve ever heard!
2. Namely that we have no military strength to spare unless we’re willing to shoot ICBMs (or whatever we’re calling them these days) at Tehran. Hm, is this called peace through insufficient firepower?
3. There is, however, more than enough money to go around for Black Ops.
4. That threat being the current Iranian government, which won’t do what we say.