In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Gerecht advocates that the United States open direct talks with Iran's nation, something the Bush Administration has as yet declined to do and that Democrat candidate Barack Obama has said he would do as president. Why have talks with Iran? Writer Reuel Marc Gerecht points out that Iran has been trying to develop a nuclear capability in the recent past. The Bush Administration has used this fact to stir up interest in the U.S. regarding a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
             However, as the article correctly points out, it has been known since 2003 that Iran has "halted its nuclear weapons program." But no matter what the Bush Administration has planned as far as Iran – which Gerecht insists isn't working anyway – there needs to be "a consensus among far more Democrats and Republicans that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable." And the Bush White House should show that it has tried to reach out to Iranian "pragmatists" and "moderates" before any more saber-rattling and any more talk of a military option. This would also bring the American public a sense of confidence that the White House isn't going to suddenly attack Iran without first attempting some discussion with this Islamic country.
             While he insists that there should be discussions between the U.S. and Iran, Gerecht, a former Middle East CIA "specialist," also says that the "American hawks" are "essentially waiting for the clerical regime to do something stupid so that they can galvanize an awareness among Americans that mullahs should not have the bomb." What that "something stupid" might be, Gerecht doesn't say, but he does flatly assert that the Iranians were involved in some of the most heinous attacks against U.S. installations in recent years. For example, Gerecht states that Iran was involved in financing the bombers who blew up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (where the Americans have a military base) in 199...