Eli Lake reports in today’s New York Sun that the estimable Committee on the Present Danger has released a new report that advocates engaging Iran in order to promote a democratic revolution. The Committee’s report focuses heavily on engaging the Iranian people–by communicating with them via mass media, sponsoring cultural and professional exchanges, encouraging NGOs to operate within Iran, and bringing Iranian pro-democracy activists to meet their counterparts abroad–and is compelling in many ways. But its suggestion of engaging the Iranian government seems inadequately developed.

A similar argument was put forward by the Hoover Institution’s Michael McFaul at a conference on Iran’s nuclear program over a month ago. The idea, as he presented it (I’m simplifying), is that only engagement can create the open, permissive conditions necessary to do what regime change requires–that is, precisely the kind of action the Committee’s report recommends. In other words, rapprochement can be used in the interest of regime change. What I don’t understand, though, is why the mullahs would agree to open up Iran to forces that could undo their power. Forcing them to do so is perhaps not unimaginable, but would require European cooperation (some might say that’s a strength of the proposal). The Committee’s report also suggests promising Tehran the rewards of trade and investment for improved behavior, as any engagement of the mullahs would likely have to do. But assuming Tehran goes along, how will granting such rewards serve the cause of regime change? Common sense suggests it would do just the opposite.