RECENTLY, John Bolton, United Nations ambassador under George W. Bush, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that any outreach to Iran would be useless, and that regime change was the only answer - a neo-conservative voice from the grave of failed policies and bad ideas.

As they used to say in fifth grade: "You and whose army?" The US military is stretched a bit thin to contemplate invading Iran, and all the covert actions in America's black-ops bag couldn't unseat the regime. This isn't 1953 when Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA could oust Iran's leader and bring back the shah.

A protégé of former vice president Dick Cheney, Bolton was undersecretary of state for arms control and proliferation when the tentative Iranian offer to make a deal on all that divided us was rejected in the we-don't-talk-to-evil days - one of the many missed opportunities to strike a deal with Iran. In the other corner are some thoughtful diplomats who tried to keep open some back channels to Iran through the long night of the Bush-Cheney administration. Among them are Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt and India; Tom Pickering, former ambassador to Israel, Jordan and Russia; and William Luers, former ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela.

They argue that, although we can make it hot for the Iranians, we cannot impose our will. To attack them would be a folly that could have untold negative consequences throughout the region and beyond.

Instead we should engage Iran on many levels at once. Iran has no interest in seeing the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan. Nor does Iran have a long-term interest in an unstable Iraq, especially now that President Obama is winding down the war.

Pickering and Luers, in a recent article in the New York Review of Books, advocate building an international nuclear power facility on Iranian soil, which might be acceptable to Iran. But their main point, which Wisner echoed in recent testimony before Congress, is that only by finding mutual points of shared interest, by showing respect for Iran as a civilization with centuries of tradition, and by recognizing that it has legitimate security interests as a regional power, can we get anywhere.

Although some maintain that Iran is riding high and that we have little leverage, Wisner points out that, from Iran's point of view, it has great vulnerabilities. There are American armies on its eastern and western frontiers. It faces both covert action and sanctions on its economy, which is in decline because of mismanagement and a drop in oil prices. From Iran's point of view it is America's fist that is clenched.

Wisner and the Pickering team differ on the timing of an American overture. Both Pickering and Luers believe that there is no point making a major initiative until Iran's presidential elections are over - probably not until midsummer. Wisner thinks we should begin now, making it clear that it is up to Iran whom it chooses. But in the meantime we can tone down our rhetoric against Iran, open up an interest section in Tehran, which former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wanted to do, facilitate exchanges, and reaffirm the Algiers Accord of 1981 in which we agreed not to meddle in Iran's internal affairs. We could also respond to the slow-down of Iran's nuclear activity since last fall and treat it as a gesture of good will to build on even if we are not sure what it means.

Nobody doubts that it is going to take a great deal of patience and time to overcome 30 years of hostility. Previous attempts to open up a dialogue have not fared well. At first, Iran's fragmented leadership leaders will have trouble reacting to advances from the "Great Satan." And as Hillary Rodham Clinton found out on her visit to the region, Israelis and Arabs are scared to death of Iran's intentions. But inviting Iran to talk about mutual concerns in Afghanistan, not just in Iraq, as the Obama administration did last week, could signal a fresh start.

We never could prevent Iran from having the knowledge of how to build a bomb, but we might, still, if we address Iran's security concerns, be able to convince Tehran that completing one is not in Iran's interest.

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.