The conditions he gives in the rest of the article are that we don't impose regime change in Iran (what kind of a demand is that? What business have we meddling in another country?) and that we not stop its nuclear program. Iran is going to get nuclear energy whether we like it or not. His last sentence also says: "We are on the verge of defeat in Iraq. Our enemies have no interest in bailing us out, unless the cost is prohibitive." As it turns out, meddling in another country's business (Iraq) turned out to be prohibitive. In the piece you're referring to he's offering no alternatives whatsoever.
I heard him interviewed on his book "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History 1500 - Today", and he said basically that we have no good alternatives in Iraq, that he had supported the war because the war going to establish our power unequivocally. But, he said, the war was so badly mismanaged that there's nothing left. Therefore, he said, we must engage Iran. He didn't comment on Syria that I can remember. He also said that war is a means, not an end. The end is peace, and peace takes political negotiation for ultimate coexistence. In this article he's saying we have no alternatives at all, including negotiating with Iran.
Either Max Boot is schizophrenic and says different things at different times, or he's simply doomsaying in that article by saying by saying there are no solutions at all, including dealing with Iran. If that's the case, what's left?
