As best understood, 44's attempt to inflict realpolitik era treaties and treatment fully crunk with carrots, containment, linkage, stability, security and threat sticks towards the illegit, intolerant murderous regime in Mullahopolis has spooned up against three things
"... not planned for, however, a situation of near-insurrection and Khamenei’s shift out of the arbiter’s lofty cover into explicit alignment with Ahmadinejad. "
Aside from consigning the "Nuke Free since '03 NIE" to the dumpster (which is yet another added benefit of defeating the largest Arab army in history in 20 days), it begats nigh instant nuke power stats to a rising hegemon desiring to arc out to the Red and Med Seas as Supreme Leader's revolutionary avionic missile men have discovered how to hook up Shahab 3 to a warhead.
If the jumped up Ayatollah approves the creation of a nukey device, "...it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead.”
No secret that Great Satan's magical envoy -- the avuncular Dr Dennis Ross -- feels happy happy non profit jaw flapping may provide thongus publicus for actionable actions like annihilating Persia's 3 main tender portions or -- maybe even knocking off the entire regime.
So what the heck IS the current stat about 'engagement?' What are the plays that players could play?
Indirect Approach - originally applied like glitter lip gloss to panzers and paratroopers - teaches that
"In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct
approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by
compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender's hold by
upsetting his balance."
And it can be applied to face sucking with Iran
"Such an approach is certainly not new. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. government applied a similar strategy toward the Soviet Union in an attempt to influence the Kremlin's internal conduct. That initiative--named "Jackson-Vanik," after its two main co-sponsors (Washington Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Ohio Congressman Charles Vanik)--linked "most favored nation" trading status for the Soviet Union to a liberalization of the USSR's draconian emigration policies. The approach worked.
"Eager to engage in commerce with the West, Moscow loosened restrictions on travel, granting freedom to a generation of Soviet dissidents and laying the groundwork for glasnost and perestroika.
"The lesson remains valid today. For too long, legitimate concerns over the Iranian regime's atomic effort have overshadowed serious discussions about human rights conditions within Iran.
"But Iran is a country deeply interested in international recognition and desperate for regional prestige, and therefore vulnerable to pressure that calls its status on these two counts into question. The U.S. can exploit this opening in two ways.
"The first has to do with "engagement." Outreach to Iran may have become the centerpiece of the Obama team's Mideast strategy in recent months. But, as administration officials are quick to warn, it is not intended to be open-ended, or to shield Tehran from the consequences of its actions on the nuclear front.
"The same should hold true with what Iran does at home. After all, the White House cannot have its policy with Iran become a foil that facilitates greater regime repression. To make sure that it doesn't, Washington will need to put Tehran on notice that the prospects for real, long-term dialogue are as much a function of Iran's domestic practices as of its nuclear ambitions.
"The second has to do with trade. The U.S. today has far less economic leverage over Iran than it did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But Europe can help. Cumulatively, the countries of the E.U. serve as Iran's largest trading partner, with an annual turnover trade of nearly $20 billion. And while European capitals have proved notoriously resistant to using this economic clout to pressure Iran over its persistent nuclear ambitions, there's reason to believe that the question of human rights might find a more receptive ear.
"That is because the countries of Europe, almost without exception, are signatories to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which obliges them to encourage "the effective exercise of civil, political, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms" abroad. Over the years, those standards have been applied almost entirely in the breach when it has come to Iran. Washington, however, has the ability to make that laissez faire attitude an issue--and to nudge Europe toward taking a more activist stance on altering the Iranian regime's domestic behavior.
"All of which would be a boon to Iran's nascent democracy movement. Thirty-five years ago, Jackson-Vanik subtly but profoundly changed the way the Soviet leadership related to its own citizens. In doing so, it created the empty political space necessary for serious opposition to the Kremlin to mature and gather. The same breathing room is now desperately needed within Iran, where the current protests remain chaotic and disorganized without leadership or a cohesive ideological vision.
"Perhaps most important, however, is the signal that such an approach would send to Iran's ayatollahs, and to the world's other autocrats and strongmen."
Pic - "Engagement Interruptus" submitted by Xerxes7