Sullivan on dealing with Iran

Andrew Sullivan returned from Amsterdam (which makes me happy because I get a lot of traffic from his site) and links to this Jonathan Rauch article from the National Journal on Iran and how the US needs more options for dealing with it:

Against Iran, developing flexible-response capability implies recognizing three facts. First, Iran has positioned itself as a regional power and must be dealt with as such. That will mean talking to Iran instead of at it, negotiating rather than demanding. Second, U.S. conventional superiority does not and will not sufficiently deter Iran, whether or not Iran is nuclear.

Third, the United States urgently needs instruments that can hurt Tehran short of launching a major war. Those include propaganda and aid campaigns, support for the mullahs' domestic political opponents, and economic pressure. All are easier said than done, but the cumulative effect even of flawed efforts can be significant, as the Soviets learned.

[emphasis mine.] Sullivan suggests that moving away from oil and towards alternative energy sources would be a great way to get some leverage against Iran, and I totally agree.

I'll also point to this Alfred Glenstein article that also tracksback to this Sullivan post. He makes some good points:

Forgive me for pointing out that the deeper indulgence in these topics implicity accepts and reinforces the idea that Iran is a serious threat at some level to the U.S., suggesting that instigating full fledged war is an option that sits side by side in sober consideration with alternatives like diplomacy and wrangling with economic issues
[...]
What I mean is that hawkishness is an undercurrent in these indulgences, whereas a slightly less trigger happy and generally more sober assessment of problems here at home would probably find us delving into the details of, say, whatever happened to the American Dream, what with rising levels of poverty and inequality. I mean, that's hitting us right here and now, isn't it?