It is amazing what happens to people when they actually visit a country they pontificate about. (Imagine if Ken Pollack were to actually visit Iran!?!) Enter David Ignatius of the Washington Post; I've written before when I heard him on NPR saying the drift to war with Iran was 'inevitable.' Don't look now, but after visiting the country just two months ago, he's had a significant change of heart. Take yesterday's column for example. 'Talk, talk, talk,' is basically the theme. Talk with whom? Talk with Iran, of course.

And I think Ignatius offers up a reason more shrewd and clever than any febrile neocon could ever dream up. Ignatius writes:

Iran's ruling mullahs are said to worry on a deeper level that in talking with America, the Islamic republic would lose its legitimacy.

Bingo! If there is anything I learned while I was in Iran is that anything that weakens the legitimacy of the mullahs (and war would only strengthen them) will be a.) welcomed by the Iranian street and b.) is a smart policy that should be adopted by the US; all the more reason to negotiate with the theocrats who run the country right now. We'll embolden the youth bulge in the country, embolden the nascent feminist movement, embolden moderates of all stripes to stand up and demand the government they want. I say give the mullahs what they want: undermine them with mutual respect, which is guaranteed to knock them off quicker than 'regime change' ever will.

Why?

If the mullahs don't have the 'Great Satan' to bash around they'll have to deliver what's really important to the people of Iran or be swept aside. Isn't that the true aim of our policy in the Middle East: popular sovereignty within a local, Islamic, context?

That's the reality I saw while I was in Iran.