The Dems on Iran: Where Opportunity Knocks Lies the Danger of Iraq II

Every Democrat begrudgingly knows that David Brooks understands and explains the strategic position of the Democratic Party as well as and sometimes better than does any Democrat. And every Democrat knows that even when Brooks misses the mark, it's anything but easy to convince the media echo chamber to take a different cue from another source.

So whenever I open up the NYT's op-ed page to the first few paragraphs of a piece with some derivation of "Dem" and the Brooks byline, I pay my respects; I pay close attention.

On January 22, 2006, in "Hating the Bomb," Brooks took the first of many stabs at outlining the coming debate over U.S. engagement of Iran.

He breaks down the preliminary debate into four camps: the Pre-emptionists (McCain), the Sanctionists (Centrist Democrats, Clinton and Bayh), the Reformists (a neutered by Iraq, Bush & Co.), and the Silent Fatalists (the Brooks identified mainstream Democrats).

Overall this outline is accurate. But you've got to keep in mind the caveat that a Brooks analysis is sure to be laced with a Republican hue.

In "Hating the Bomb," the Republican agenda lies in his oversimplified label of Centrist Democrats as "the Sanctionists." Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Evan Bayh and others do advocate the use of sanctions against Iran, but they also strongly maintain that the use of pre-emptive force is an option that must remain on the table.

To be fair, Brooks goes on to offer this more detailed qualification of the Centrist Democratic position. But his opening label is anything but a mistake. Indeed, it is meant to influence his readers and begin a media multiplier effect intended to pigeonhole opinion maker understandings of Democratic policy on Iran as limited to "sanctions."

All of this said, Brooks is dead on in identifying that many Democrats, mainstream Democrats, call them what you will Democrats, remain largely silent in addressing the emerging Iranian threat. This is inexcusable

Democrats run the risk of falling into a redux of the 2002-03 lead up to war in Iraq, or Iraq II, in which we once again are rolled over and fail the test of alternative leadership in a time of national peril.

At the very same time, the deteriorating situation in Iran presents a unique opportunity for the Democratic Party to reassert itself as the key holder of a hard-nosed, yet intelligent direction for American national security. We have a rare opportunity to get out in front of a GOP experiencing the early signs of a deep rift over Iran between McCainian Hawks and Iraq exhausted Bushies.

In fact, I believe the first shot of the 2008 presidential election was fired on October 26, 2005, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the State of Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Ahmadinejad's statement, however militant and ill-advised, announced the arrival of a belligerent Iran on the world stage - a new Iran that gone nuclear (as its leaders now seem hell bent on achieving) presents a most serious concern to Middle East stability, and therefore, to American national security.

We Democrats had better act on the lessons learned from the lead up to the Iraq war and apply them, now.

I sincerely hope that in the coming weeks, Democratic foreign policy experts from the Brookings Institution to the Council on Foreign Relations to the Center for American Progress convene with the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill, Governor Dean at the Democratic National Committee and any and all Democratic presidential hopefuls for a Democratic Party Summit on Iran. I further hope that this Summit on Iran will not break until the attendees have formed a clear and agreed upon way forward.

As for me, I'll be watching the NYT's op-ed page, awaiting the next David Brooks piece including the words "Dem" and "Iran." My only hope is that in his next stab at the subject, Mr. Brooks will be reacting to a cogent Democratic plan and not, once again, telling Democrats what Democrats are failing to do.