WASHINGTON – Breaking a longstanding taboo among hawks on Iran, the Committee on the Present Danger is calling on President Bush to offer diplomatic relations with the country in an effort to expedite the fall of the ruling mullahs.

In its first policy paper, the recently reformed Committee on the Present Danger has tailored its approach to regime change in Iran by expediting new developments from Iran’s democrats inside and outside the country. To that end, the committee – whose honorary chairs are Senator Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, and Senator Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut – proposes increasing cultural interactions between Washington and Tehran, assigning a high-ranking State Department counselor as an envoy to the Iranian people, and even offering to re-open the American embassy that Islamic radicals seized in 1979 in the incident that sparked the longest hostage crisis in American history.

That may sound like the kind of policy prescription one would expect to hear from the Council on Foreign Relations, or other pro-engagement think tank. Yet it comes from an organization whose members include President Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz; a former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and an editor at Commentary Magazine, Norman Podhoretz.

Lest Iran’s clerics think the prescriptions are a concession, the paper makes sure to point out that the American embassy would be largely a home address to aid their opposition. It also proposes that should the mullahs spurn the engagement, America should prioritize certain sanctions against the regime, such as freezing bank accounts for top officials, and gathering evidence for use in a future trial against its supreme leader for crimes against humanity. In addition, the committee recommends allocating $10 million to fund independent satellite TV stations outside the country that are now broadcasting into Iran.

“Opening up dictatorships is key to helping the forces of change,” the paper says. “We were on the ground with an embassy and support programs for Solidarity in Poland, which played a central role in the nonviolent transition to democracy.” The position paper comes as the president and his top advisers are in the process of rethinking American policy toward the Islamic republic. In November, Britain, France, and Germany signed a tentative agreement committing the Iranian regime to freezing its enrichment of uranium. One week later, it was disclosed that the Iranians kept two facilities related to its nuclear program from inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Around the same time, major student groups inside the country, along with activists outside Iran, including some early leaders of the 1979 revolution, formed a new united front to collect signatures expressing support for a referendum on Iran’s constitution. In an interview earlier this month, one of its leaders, Mohsen Sazegara, said he would be open to American support.

The approach recommended for Iran parallels the policy pursued by President Clinton in Serbia after the 1999 NATO bombing campaign that prevented Slobodan Milosevic from cleansing Kosovo of its Albanians. After the bombing campaign, the U.S. Agency for International Development stepped up aid to the student group, Otpor. When Mr. Milosevic attempted to steal his country’s presidential election in September 2000, Otpor stormed Belgrade and the Serbian dictator’s henchmen refused to carry out orders to disperse the crowds. Having lost control of the capital, Mr. Milosevic went into hiding and was eventually whisked away to a war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

It is the hope of the author of the policy paper, Mark Palmer, that something like that will happen in Tehran. A presidential election is scheduled in Iran this May. “We want to start a dialogue with Ayatollah Ali Khameini about returning to the mosque,” Mr. Palmer said. “Either you get out of trying to run this place, and allow for real elections and a real democracy, or we will bring a criminal indictment against you.”

Mr. Palmer, an ambassador to Hungary during the collapse of the Soviet Union, published a book last year outlining a strategy for ridding the world of its remaining dictators. In that book, he specifically wrote about how engagement and diplomacy with rogue regimes can help spur their downfall. In the interview yesterday, Mr. Palmer said that some members initially opposed the engagement approach, but eventually were persuaded.

“Well, most of the regime change approaches do not have the engagement dimension,” Mr. Palmer said. “But this does not go with the mindless engagers. We believe this only makes sense if it has a purpose.” He added, “I think it’s different and the Europeans should be pleased. We say, ‘Join us in an active, aggressive approach to support people power. You are not going to get there by doing these agreements when you know the Iranians are going to cheat.'”