Nicholas R. Burns, one of the State Department’s most prominent “realists,” spoke at length on Wednesday about Iran, and it was discouraging to say the least.

Appearing at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Burns laid out the U.S. case against the Islamic Republic, but in a manner that seemed calculated to make things worse, not better.

He didn’t quite call for “regime change” in Iran, which is a good thing considering how bad it turned out next door in Iraq. But he came close. And he made several points that were just outlandish.

In that category, the most flagrant was his charge that Iran is busy undermining the U.S. position in Iraq by supporting the insurgents. Now, Nicholas, you know as well as anyone that Iran is ecstatic that the United States toppled Saddam, and that Teheran is happily building ties to the Shiite religious parties in Iran. Not only is there no evidence that the mullahs are supporting the Iraqi resistance, but why on earth would they want to do so? Iraq – or at least the oil-rich Shiite half of it – is falling into their lap.

Second, Burns accused Iran of harboring Al Qaeda. Now, this, too, is unsupported by any evidence. In 2003, it was the Bush administration’s catechism that Iraq harbored Al Qaeda and that Iraq had some vague ties to 9/11, but that all turned out to be hogwash, as the CIA had already concluded. During the Q&A, I asked Burns to justify his charge that “Iran continues to host senior Al Qaeda leaders [and] Al Qaeda continues to use Iran as a safe haven.” With no apology, he flatly refused to answer the question, saying only that everyone knows that Iran has ties to terrorists. Now certainly Iran supports Hezbollah, but Al Qaeda? I don’t think so.

Finally, and scariest, I asked Burns: “Vice President Cheney recently said that Israel might take matters into its own hands and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? Will you unequivocally state that the United States would look on such an action with strong disfavor?” He declined to do so, period. When I objected, saying: “You didn’t answer the question, he said: “I answered the question in the way I wanted to answer it.” Earlier, in his talk, he stressed that “all options are on the table” and added: “Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is simply unthinkable.” According to the CIA, such an eventuality is also a decade away. But that doesn’t stop the Bushies from considering it urgent now.