Outlook: Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi)

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran knows what he wants: nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; suppression of freedom at home and the spread of terrorism abroad; and the "shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi) (Post, June 25)

"President Bush, too, knows what he wants: an irreversible end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the "expansion of freedom in all the world" and victory in the war on terrorism."

"The State Department and its European counterparts know what they want: negotiations."

"For more than five years, the administration has dithered," writes Richard Perle , former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, in Sunday's Outlook. "Bush gave soaring speeches, the Iranians issued extravagant threats and, in 2003, the State Department handed the keys to the impasse to the British, French and Germans, who offered diplomatic valet parking to an administration befuddled by contradiction and indecision. And now, on May 31, the administration offered to join talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

"How is it that Bush, who vowed that on his watch "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands," has chosen to beat such an ignominious retreat?"

"Proximity is critical in politics and policy. And the geography of this administration has changed. Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of - and increasingly represents - a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries."

Perle was online Monday, June 26, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article about the Bush administration's Iran policy.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Richard Perle: Many of your questions have stated or implied that I am recommending military action against Iran, or against Iran's nuclear weapons program. But nowhere in the article do I say that. I do believe that we need--and do not have--a serious political strategy for Iran at the center of which would be vigorous support for the internal opposition to the dictatorship of the mullahs.

The administration has recently proposed $75 million to support broadcasting into Iran, a step in the right direction but a mere pittance, too-little-too-late. The president has been eloquent in support of those trying to bring democratic reform to dictatorship. But where are the programs to support this idea--the centerpiece of a Bush doctrine? Now there is a danger that the newest diplomatic initiative will actually lead to turning our back on the Iranian regime's democratic opponents. That would be the natural tendency of the State Department. The Reagan administration in which I served was able to challenge the legitimacy of the Soviet dictatorship while negotiating with it at the same time. I am concerned that this administration will not recognize that we can do both: negotiate and undermine, through a political program and support for Iranian dissidents,trade unionists, secularists and the like, at the same time.

I was disappointed that the administration did not support--or at least remain neutral toward--Senator Santorum's amendment to increase funding for the political opposition and in other ways strengthen the government's ability to bring non-military pressure to bear on the Iranian regime.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Perle:

It seems that we are basing our opposition to Iranian nuclear energy on the suspicion that the intention of Larjani and others is to develop weapons.

Is there hard evidence to support this claim? The terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) disclosed the clandestine nuclear program in 2002, as you know. Nonetheless, is the Islamic Republic actually within its rights to develop nuclear energy per the relevant NPT provisions?

Finally, in the interests of regional peace and non-proliferation as well as "our honor", will the prospect of economic sanctions (presuming the EU-3 arrives at that penalty in July, that is if Iran is allowed to keep stalling for time) goad Iranians into supporting the Ahmadinejad regime, therefore increasing his legitimacy?

Richard Perle: Yes, there is hard evidence, some of which I've mentioned in other answers. The Islamic republic is a signatory of the NPT and, as such, has NO right to nuclear weapons. That is the issue. Nuclear power is one thing, nuclear weapons another. By implication you reject getting behind the opposition to the regime and even sanctions. What do you suggest--wait until Iran is a nuclear weapons state and hope for the best?

_______________________

Phoenix, Ariz.: As we are so bogged down in Iraq, I ask what military options are available? Your reference to Ronald Reagan seems to imply that President Bush should give better speeches? My last question is why should anyone give your words any attention after how ill informed you were about the outcome in Iraq? Was not democracy going to spring up spontaneously?

Richard Perle: Speaking of ill-informed, can you find any statement from me that democracy would "spring up spontaneously?"

_______________________

Ft Myers, Fla.: Mr. Perle, there is a remarkable consistency between your assertions today on Iran, and your alliance with the Pentagon group four years ago who insisted that Iraq had WMD. Why should we give you and AEI yet another free pass?

Richard Perle: I don't know which "assertions" you have in mind. Do you believe that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons? I am no fan of the CIA, then or now. But Iran has been caught by the IAEA with secret installations for enrichment and heavy water. What will it take to convince you?

_______________________

Reading, Mass.: Does Iranian nuclear program present a greater threat to the United States than the Saddam Hussein regime in March 2003?

Richard Perle: We will never know what Saddam's regime(or that of his murderous successor sons) would have done if it had remained in power. The concern was real and I believe we were justified in acting against that threat. We also do not know what Ahmadinejad would do if he had nuclear weapons. Do you want to risk it?

_______________________

Cripple Creek, Colo.: Sir, Who will you support in the coming civil war in Iraq, Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds? Who was the first to come up with the hocum about the WMD's in Iraq? Thank you for your considered answers.

Sincerely, Jim Bailey

Richard Perle: I hope there will not be a civil war. I support the elected government which includes elements from all parts of Iraqi society. As for WMD, it was the view of the CIA as well as British, German, French intelligence and the UN inspectors that Saddam had--and failed to account for the disposition of--WMd including chemical and biological weapons.

_______________________

Lexington, Ky.: You once worked for Scoop Jackson, a hawkish Democrat who inspired Howard Dean in modeling his foreign policy for the 2004 primaries. If I have it correctly, you were once a Democrat. What do you think of Peter Beinart's "Fighting the Good Fight"? Do you think a resurrected 1940s antitotalitarian liberal foreign policy would do a better job confronting Iran than the current administration?

Richard Perle: Actually, I'm still a democrat. Haven't read Beinart's book. Finally, an anti-totalitarian foreign policy is not inconsistent with "confronting" Iran. My point is it should part of any policy to contain Iran and stop its nuclear weapons program.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: After reading your Outlook piece, I'm a little confused as to whether you are simply misguided as to the actual recent history of USA-Iran relations or simply one of those people who is tired of waiting for Armageddon and wants to bend the facts to speed things along.

From the mid-90s through perhaps 2003, we were growing closer and closer to establishing good relations with Iran. They reached out to us through diplomatic channels. They were reforming. You can ignore these facts if you like, but they're still true.

We scoffed. We stepped up the "axis of evil" rhetoric. And in response, a country full of people who would generally respect the West elected the madman Ahmadinejad.

So when you ask who blew it, look in the mirror at yourself and your hard-line colleagues.

So my question is this: Do you not actually understand Iran? Or are you a madman yourself, even worse than Ahmadinejad?

Richard Perle: Is there a third possibility--that you have misread the recent history? Closer to the US? Are you joking? Iran's support for terrorism and its nuclear weapons program have been consistent, even under the "reform" program of Khatami.

As for the "election" of Ahmadinejad, you can't be serious. Only candidates approved by the mullahs are allowed to run for election.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: You're closely associated with those who thought invading Iraq was a good idea. History isn't finished with it yet, but already it's clear it was poorly thought through. Did you draw any lessons from that experience that you bring to this latest set of policy recommendations on Iran?

Richard Perle: For many years I argued that we should support the internal opposition to Saddam Hussein. It was only after 9/11 that I supported military action by the United States. That military action brought Saddam down in 21 days. I have consistently disagreed with the occupation policies that followed.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Why is Iran more dangerous than Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear capabilities and a modern delivery system in the form of U.S.- supplied long-range F-16 jets. Pakistan is a proven non-proliferation violator. Pakistan has a history of military coups, a non-democratic leader that would not survive a day without the CIA protection, and a military full of extreme Muslims. Why not go after Pakistan -- a greater and more imminent threat to the U.S.?

Richard Perle: Pakistan could also become dangerous, especially if it is taken over by an Islamist dictatorship and supports terrorism as the Iranians do.

_______________________

Hyattsville, Md.: 1. Why does Perle avoid the issue of Iraq, notably that Iraq is such a disaster that maybe Bush now chooses to negotiate with Iran for a change?

2. Why does Perle insist that a large portion of the population of Iran is waiting for a chance to overthrow the government. It's almost the same canard that US troops will be greeted with flowers as they entered Iraq?

3. Perle claims that Iran is interfering with our "peace" efforts. Given the uncertaintude that the U.S. will ever leave Iraq, wouldn't it be in Iran's interest to in fact, make sure the U.S. does not succeed in establishing military bases in Iraq?

4. Why was it acceptable for the Shah to seek nuclear power facilities, and not the current Iranian regime?

5. Did Perle ever serve in the US military? Why or why not?

Richard Perle: I don"t "avoid" Iraq. I wrote on a different subject. I did not write about overthrowing the government. I said--and repeat--that most Iranians would like to see an end to the dictatorship. Is that surprising? As for the way US troops were greeted in Iraq, the record is clear. There was widespread (not total) approval of the removal of Saddam. I am afraid we turned the liberation into an occupation, with disastrous results from which even now we are struggling to recover. You seem to imply that Iran is justified in supporting terror in Iraq because they fear US bases there. I don't agree that terror is justified. We are. after all, talking about the taking of innocent lives. Alas, the mullahs are not simply interested in nuclear power. They want nuclear weapons. Finally, I did not serve in the military. I was married while still a student and it was then US policy to draft only single men.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Accepting all of Perle's judgment, is it not possible to compare the present situation to that endured during the Cold War, when a much greater aggressive potential was being contained and manipulated with a less confrontational multi-faceted Western "squeeze play" which let to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and more ...The immediate threat is much less and yet, the propagators of warmaking are so impatient ... forgetting the counterproductive nature of preventive war, not only because it cannot achieve strategic goals in this short time frame.

Richard Perle: I think you have missed my point. I am proposing that we treat the Iran problem in a manner similar to the treatment of the Soviet Union: strength, negotiation and support for dissidents. Reagan's political assault on the legitimacy of the politburo was crucial to winning the cold war. The danger now is that we will now pull our political punches as the mullahs become our negotiating partner.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Perle,

Thanks for entering the fray here.

If you had to to name one personnel change in Bush's national security team that has pushed Iran policy in its current direction, what would it be (besides Rice moving from NSC to State)?

Richard Perle: Give Nick Burns another ambassadorship.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr Perle, do you believe the U.S. has a weakened position of military power and diplomatic credibility after the ongoing Iraq debacle? It seems that after our justification for action against Iraq was proved dubious and our execution inept we (the U.S.) now have much less chance to pressure Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program and for the rest of the world to support us in exerting pressure.

Richard Perle: So should we give up?

_______________________

Santa Fe, N.M.: Ignominious retreat?

I'm wondering what you would prefer, Mr. Perle: yet another war without a clearly-defined objective?

And how do you propose to do that? Would we need a draft to bulk up the military? Would that be accomplished by redirecting funds now devoted to pork-barrel military equipment projects or by extending the US's indebtedness to China?

Finally, why do you and others find it so necessary to use inflammatory rhetoric like "ignominious retreat"?

Richard Perle: You're right. "Retreat" would have been enough. I certainly do not prefer war to political action.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: 1. Can you explain why the world thinks that terrorism in Iraq and Israel are different that all of the other Jihadi terrorism in the world (Madrid, London, Philippines, Kashmir, etc.)?

2. Why are so many people (primarily on the left) so sure that the Jihadis mean them no harm -- that they are just punishing us for our "errant" ways?

Richard Perle: Jihad is a universal threat, of course. I don't know why this is not generally understood.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.: North Korea has developed the Taepodong-2 missile, apparently capable of reaching the United States. Previous N,. Korean weapons have been sold to the Iranians.

Why aren't all of these people worried about a nuclear armed Iran that can attack the U.S. by missile, ship or commercial aircraft?

How ideological can they be that they don't even consider themselves at risk?

Richard Perle: Unpleasant facts can be hard to face--so many people choose not to face them. An even greater concern is an Iranian nuclear weapon given to a terrorist for use against us.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Do you consider an attack on Iran as a viable option?

Richard Perle: A surgical strike could destroy key elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. I'm not recommending that. But you didn't ask what I recommend. You asked whether a military action would be "viable."

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to deal with Iran and North Korea if we hadn't invaded Iraq when we did? It seems we have lost a lot of credibility when we most need it. Do you still believe we can remake the Middle East by invading and occupying Iraq? Do you still think the PNAC was right?

Richard Perle: It was never easy. I did not believe we could "remake" the Middle East by invading and occupying Iraq. Why do you assume I did? I think the occupation was a mistake. All we could do by military action was remove Saddam's regime. The rest is up to the Iraqis.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How can anyone talk about "blinking" when both sides state in public that Iran should not have nuclear weapons? Is this a problem of education (highly enriched uranium as opposed to a 4 percent solution)? Or are there good reasons why the credibility we have established with the war in Iraq should not be sued to cut a deal with Iran? Should we make a deal that is to our favor we could expect help in Iraq, a cut off of Hamas and the other terror groups and in general enough benefits to make it worth our effort.

Or is this just another propaganda rerun of "who lost China."

That might be entertaining, but hardly worth reading otherwise.

Richard Perle: Are you saying that the Iranians say publicly (and mean) that they should not have nuclear weapons? If that were the case the rest would be easy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I quite a fan of yours, but not in this case. Why do you say that agreeing to join the Europeans in the discussion -- if they first suspend enrichment -- is tantamount to caving in? The alternative is that we may be forced into a military strike on their nuclear facilities, which might sour otherwise friendly Iranians on us for another generation. The demographics in Iran are overwhelmingly in our favor and getting moreso every day. Military action may well turn out to be required in any event if talks are unproductive, but surely giving talks a chance is worth something.

Please comment.

Thanks.

Richard Perle: I doubt that the Iranians will in fact abandon enrichment and we will start down the path of modifying our position to, for example, allow "research" into enrichment or some other such subterfuge. We have been supporting the EU3 for three years during which the Iranians have continued their weapons program. They are playing with us. Why are we playing with them?

_______________________

Madison, Wis..: Thanks for taking comments. Many supporters of political and social reform have complained that when the U.S. provides overt support to pro-democracy groups in Iran, those groups are subjected to increased repression. In other words, our good intentions backfire. Is there a more nuanced approach that you are aware of for supporting pro-democracy groups that also protects their security? Thank you.

Richard Perle: This argument so easily becomes a rationale for doing nothing. No political opposition to a totalitarian regime can operate without outside help. The Iranian dissidents are asking for help. The president seems to have pledged support for them. Where is it?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: By most reasonable estimates, Iran is at most ten years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Much can still be done until then to prevent such an outcome.

What is your opinion on the upcoming talks in July at St. Petersburg?

Richard Perle: I doubt those estimates--but hope they are correct. I don't expect much from the G-8--or the CIA.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Your statements about the E.U.'s negotiations with Iran are fundamentally misleading. The fact is that the E.U., in the negotiations, was not permitted by the U.S. to offer any security guarantees to Iran. In what dream world of yours is it that a country disarms itself while the country that is occupying its' neighbors refuses to renounce an active "regime change" policy?

Richard Perle: I do not believe that Iran simply wants some "security guarantee" from the US after which it will abandon its nuclear weapons plan and give up its support for terrorism. They put this idea out there in the hope that some people will believe it and accept that we are the source of the impasse.

_______________________

Ft Meade, Md.: My fear is that we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan(the bin Laden - Taliban axis) by going after a harmless Iraq, thereby losing our power and moral high ground. We can do nothing about Iran, which may be far more dangerous.

Richard Perle: I do not accept that we can do nothing about Iran.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You cite the Reagan Administration's success against the Soviet Union as a model for dealing with Iran, but isn't the State Department's current stance of tough-minded diplomacy with Iran comparable to that policy? The Reagan administration did not adopt the harebrained idea of invading the Soviet Union and trying to install a pro-western government there, as we have tried to do in the Middle East.

In Russia, Communist Party leaders spearheaded by Gorbachev made political reforms that ended in democracy. Shouldn't we be trying to pressure elements in the Iranian Islamic regime to engage in political reforms, rather than backing groups of Iranian exiles who have no chance of rallying support among Iranians, especially if they are backed by American military threats? Anybody who has studied the ABC's of the Islamic world is aware that these threats strengthen the militant regime by allowing it to stigmatize opponents as traitors and rally the nation under the flag of patriotism.

Richard Perle: Backing opponents of the regime does not entail military threats. It is an alternative to such threats--although we have lost a lot of time and it may not be possible to advance the cause of reform in Iran in time to cause a rethinking of their nuclear weapons program. Support for the opposition is not a program for exiles. There are millions of regime opponents in Iran. They need information, communications capabilities and moral and political support. Do you oppose that?

Richard Perle: Richard Perle: Backing opponents of the regime does not entail military threats. It is an alternative to such threats--although we have lost a lot of time and it may not be possible to advance the cause of reform in Iran in time to cause a rethinking of their nuclear weapons program. Support for the opposition is not a program for exiles. There are millions of regime opponents in Iran. They need information, communications capabilities and moral and political support. Do you oppose that?

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Where does al-Qaeda fit in with Iran?

Richard Perle: Iran works with virtually all terrorist organizations, Sunni and Shiite, including Al-Qaeda.

_______________________

Richard Perle: Thanks to everyone who has participated with lots of good questions.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.