The real reason why there can be no "Nixon to China" is because while Nixon could easily overcome the pro-Taiwanese lobby's influence, no US president can hope to overcome the pro-Israeli lobby.

Otherwise, there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in IRan, and the Iranians recognize that having nuclear weapons would be actually contrary to their interests. UN Ambassador Javad Zarif said:

"Iran does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests in the immediate neighborhood. In fact, to augment Iranian influence in the region, it has been necessary for Iran to win the confidence of its neighbors, an effort that will inevitably suffer from such perceptions. Furthermore, with the current state of its technological development and military capability, Iran cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region. Engaging in a spiraling arms race to establish and maintain nuclear deterrence would also be prohibitively expensive, draining the limited economic resources of the country."

True, Mr. Haas. It's just too bad that the government of Iran doesn't understand that.

Did you look at a map lately? Iran's neighbors , which I define as countries within easy range of a missle or airplane, already have nukes: Russian Republic, China, India, Pakistan and Israel. There is a real bunch of pacifists for you. Afghanistan is not getting a nuclear program anytime soon nor Iraq as long as US troops are there. Pakistan was actively trading in nuclear materials for years. Wouldn't be surprised if North Korea started selling Nukes on e-Bay.
The so called advanced weapons used by Hamas could be made in any machine shop and rely on technology weapons technology well known since WW2. IEDs are often tripped by garage door openers or cell-phones. Any competent technician could order all the parts they needed except for the explosive out of a good industrial catalogue.

Iran is the new bogeyman of the Middle East. If we want to have rational policy we need to stop seeking Iranian plots behind everything that happens in that region.

Mao had Zhou Enlai. Nixon had Kissinger. Obama has Clinton. Sadly Iran has no one. Perhaps if Russia started a fire fight with Iran as the Soviets had with the PRC, this might motivate the mullahs and their president.

"While the USSR did not use nuclear weapons, it transferred nuclear technology to other states, the consequences of which trouble us greatly to this day."

Not to mention the weapons transferred by the United States to foreign states that have come back to haunt us. The reality is, every action has consequences. I wonder how our presence in the Middle East, for example, will transform the region, and how our training and arming of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan will bear out in the distant future. And I wonder, if containment is not option for Iran, what are the consequences to the alternative, a military strike? These are the questions that need to be asked.

Yes, Nixon-to-China grandstanding and “containment” are both inappropriate analogies for Iran. The Iranian elite is not convinced that dealing with Washington is worth the risk, so a highly public show would probably backfire. As for containment, the idea of containment is to wall in a monster too big to kill safely but too harmful to live with. One could argue for
”containment” of Goldman Sachs (destroying it outright would endanger the economy; leaving it to continue its unregulated rampage sets the world up for another unnecessary recession). One could argue for “containment” of the U.S. (too powerful to eliminate but too irresponsible in its post-9/11 militancy to live with). But the idea of “containment” of Iran, which is struggling to emerge from the 19th century, only encourages Ahmadinejad’s grandiose self-image and pushes the U.S. further into the trap of feeding Israeli militancy (see Israeli Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam’s remarks in the Sunday Times, January 10).

The proper analogy for Iran is “quiet engagement.” It may not work, but a sincere attempt would take some of the air out of the tires of the bandwagon of Ahmadinejad and his Iranian neo-cons (the belligerent post-Iraq-Iran War super-patriots in the IRGC) and others who use foreign threats to justify the curtailing of civil liberties.

Then again, a sincere policy of quiet engagement might work. We won’t know if we don’t try.

But “engagement” does not mean condescending to talk and expecting Iranians to rush hither on bended knee bearing gifts. “Engagement” means accepting the concept of a positive-sum outcome and coordinating with Iran to define what that means.

Before Washington is ever likely to design a serious “engagement” policy, a debate in the U.S. about the reasonable parameters of such a policy seems an essential process of educating ourselves by thinking through the details of how to (gasp!) redesign the Mideast.

Today, there are several options on the diplomatic table for redesigning the Mideast – al Qua’ida wants civilizational war, Israel wants to eliminate all opposition to its dominance, Erdogan wants good-neighborliness and cooperation. The U.S., with its neo-cons still advocating the failed option of total control, is…ahhh…confused.

“Engagement” will require a Mideast policy that will promote regional security for all states, will address the concerns of dissident movements, and will make room for a rising Iran. It will require concessions from Washington but will also offer the potential for benefits. The domestic dialogue in the U.S. needs to address both the concessions the superpower should be willing to make and the benefits it wants to obtain.

Hass: "there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in IRan"
M WILK: "Iran is the new bogeyman of the Middle East."
Newsflash: Given that the tyrannical Iranian regime has already proven it is willing to murder its own people in the streets in order to stay in power, it's not a big leap to conclude, in accordance with growing amounts of evidence, that it's developing nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors and increase its regional influence.

I had an idea of what this might entail as soon as I saw that the author was Michael Singh, but here goes-

While we should not count too heavily on the Iranian regime's rationality -- its officials have, after all, mused about destroying Israel -- neither should we exaggerate the likelihood that Iran would initiate a nuclear conflict that would prove its own demise.

What are you, an idiot? This is the same Iranian regime that sold the embassy hostages back to the US for under-the-table weapons deals. One thing that regime has never forgotten is self-preservation, and the last thing they would ever do is willingly start a nuclear conflict for shits and giggles. Here's a hint - they don't want to end up on the receiving end of a nuclear assault.

Of perhaps greater concern is that Iran would transfer its nuclear know-how to other countries or, far more alarming, to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. This scenario is not far-fetched -- nuclear powers have regularly transferred their technology to others, and Iran in particular has been generous in sharing advanced military hardware with its proxies, like the advanced rocketry employed by Hezbollah against Israel or IEDs used by Iraqi insurgents against American troops.

Rockets does not equal nuclear weapons, and it is far, far more difficult to build a nuclear weapon than it is to build a rocket. It's not the sort of thing a group like Hezbollah could do unless Iran literally gave them the parts and processed fuel along with the instructions. Fat chance of that happening.

So everything not to our liking that happens in Middle East is an Iranian Plot?

Sounds like Cold War where "Communists" were behind everything bad that happened in West. Or current Fox News where "Liberals" are behind everything that goes wrong in US. I doubt if anyone who posted here admires Iran's current government. I don't deny that Iran is at least exploring the option of building a Nuke. If I was surrounded by nuclear armed countries I would too, especially if the world's greatest military power had labeled me as part of the "Axis of Evil". Even though we have a new administration, I don't recall that statement being retracted. Why would an Iranian Nuke trigger an arms race any more than nukes in India, Pakistan or Israel? India and Pakistan have been pursuing a regional "Cold War" and nuclear arms race for decades. The "advanced weapons" for Hamas is pure hype. Again, the basic technology of those weapons has been well known for decades. Unguided rockets with similar or superior performance to Hamas rockets were used by the million during an after WW2. We gave away guided weapons to groups fighting the USSR in Afghanistan in the 80's. Of course none of that stuff ever got into the wrong hands.

Michael Singh's naivette aside, with the rise of China as a super power to challenge US, US has to be regretting Nixon's embrace of China's Communist dragon to counter Russia's Soviet bear in 1972.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until anti-Communist Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

It behooves China to erect a statue of anti-communist Nixon right next to die-hard communist Mao in Beijing for making China’s rise as super power possible.

1. "[Iran's] officials have, after all, mused about destroying Israel"

I know that one hears this assertion regularly in the US, but this is attributable to bad translation and hype. To my knowledge, Iran has never threatened a first strike against Israel. The same cannot be said of Israel and the US.

2. "Iran in particular has been generous in sharing advanced military hardware with its proxies, like ... IEDs used by Iraqi insurgents against American troops"

Bush administration officials claimed this, but have never provided significant supporting evidence.

Please do provide substantiation of these claims, if you can, Mr. Singh.