I’m finally getting around to reading the American Enterprise Institute’s new report, "Containing and deterring a nuclear Iran," which focuses mainly on the difficulties inherent in such a strategy. I’ll have more to say about it later, but for now I’ll just note this graf from the executive summary:

Throughout the Cold War, the policy of containment oscillated between periods of strategic expansion and contraction, but the underlying policy remained remarkably consistent. Those principles are essential components of a coherent Iran containment policy: that it should seek to block any Iranian expansion in the Persian Gulf region; to illuminate the problematic nature of the regime’s ambitions; to constrain and indeed to “induce a retraction” of Iranian influence, including Iranian “soft power”; and to work toward a political transformation, if not a physical transformation, of the Tehran regime.

Please note that the war in Iraq, of which AEI was a leading advocate, undermined each and every one of these principles in regard to Iran. It helped facilitate Iranian expansion in the Persian Gulf region. It distracted from the problematic nature of the Iranian regime’s ambitions. It induced an expansion of Iranian influence, including Iranian “soft power.” By affirming the paranoid arguments of Iranian hardliners, it hindered political transformation of the Tehran regime. Or rather, it encouraged the transformation of that regime in a more extreme form of conservatism. But don’t expect any recognition of this from the folks at AEI. Indeed, AEI’s Danielle Pletka recently wrote, "I did repeatedly argue for the ouster of Saddam Hussein, and I would do it again." Wonderful.

There aren’t really a lot of great options for dealing with Iran right now. But as you read AEI’s current ideas for it, do keep in mind how much of a role their previous bad ideas played in getting us here.

Subscribe to Middle East Progress Alerts

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

Setting the Record Straight

Determined to Reach a Common Objective

“We knew at the outset that the task would be difficult. We acknowledged that publicly and privately. We knew this would be a road with many bumps— and there have been many bumps—and that continues to this day. But we are not deterred. We are, to the contrary, determined more than ever to proceed to realize the common objective, which we all share, of a Middle East that is at peace with security and prosperity for the people of Israel, for Palestinians, and for all the people in the region. We will continue our efforts in that regard, undeterred and undaunted by the difficulties, the complexities or the bumps in the road.”—George Mitchell, special envoy for Middle East peace, remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, September 29, 2010

Middle East Analysis

Upcoming Events

The U.S. Agency for International Development and Conflict: Hard Lessons from the Field

May 17, 2011, 12:00pm – 1:15pm

From Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Somalia, and South Sudan, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, is engaged daily in trying to help some of the most troubled nations on the planet make a lasting transition to stability, open markets, and democracy. Few areas of the agency’s work are more challenging or more controversial.

Join us for remarks by, and a roundtable with, the deputy administrator of USAID, Ambassador