Barack Obama supports diplomatic engagement first with Iran, then action if that doesn't resolve matters and I am for Obama, so..

BTW, the U.N. Security Council has just passed a third round of sanctions against Iran.

The article hits the key points very well.  I have also argued that the #1 foreign policy objective for the US should be normalization of ties with Iran and indeed a hands-off but sympathetic and supportive role in fostering Iranian democracy.  Iran is going to change, and probably sooner than later.  When that happens, we want the elected government to be open to friendly relations with the US.  I think the author is a little over-the-top with considering Iranians to be "pro-American" but they are certainly not anti-American (as a whole).  American culture is making huge gains in Iran and I think we will advance our own interests far better with iPods and XBox's  than with bombs and bullets.

The author leaves out three key points however.  I think the youth of the Iranian population makes it natuarally more willing to work with the US (for political reforms).  Of course, attacking them will also make them more likely to resist violently than an aging population.  Second, Iran has two strikes against it in the Muslim world and Middle East at large.  First, it is primarily Shiite, which is less than 20% of the world-wide Muslim population.  This doesn't guarantee conflict with other Muslims, but that shadow does loom ominously over their heads.  The second strike is that Iranians are not Arabs.  Again, this isn't recipe for disaster in and of itself, but it gives Iran some incentive for having powerful friends just in case relations with its neighbors takes a nosedive.  The last point is that Iran sits in a precarious position.  Iran's resources are quite important to many nations, but with Russia, China, India and Pakistan all uncomfortably close, one has to believe that Iran keeps a careful eye on its friends and its enemies.

We can offer a lot to Iran.  The most important thing we offer is credibility.  For some reason, we seem to be the only single country that can knight another nation and deem them credible.  This is what Iran wants more than just about anything.  And interestingly enough, it is what can bail us out of Iraq.  If we get Iran to work with us and promise well-deserved praise for helping to stabilize Iraq, we accomplish our mission there, and Iran gets the credibility it is desperately seeking. 

It really seems like a perfect match.  So we have to deal with the Iranian government for a while.  Big whoop - we've dealt with far worse before.  Also, if you are an Israeli, you have to feel better if Iran and America are on good terms.  To me, this is a relationship that Iran knows would be destroyed if they did something to Israel.  I bet they would tone down the rhetoric if they knew it would keep Washington doing business with Iran..........

Thanks for that link, kactus. I favorited it.

I've agreed with and heavily supported the more rational people here about how to deal with Iran. But more importantly, I'm glad the lot of us can see how Iran will, in just a few years, become a natrual ally of the US. It will make our current "alliance" (if you wanna call it that) with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia look like pale in comparison.

It'll also make any future Middle East Peace agreement all the more possible (since Iran won't be so disruptive to the process).


Exactly. They have a relatively young, moderate population of teenagers and young 20-somethings. We should be cultivating this generation - and have, for the most part, already started. They wear blue-jeans and gucci sun glasses and high heels and it would be an absolute waste to take this NATRUAL (this word can't be stressed enough) affection and work with it.

I saved an edition of "The Economist" that broke Iran down so well, I couldn't stand to throw it away. I'll share some details if I can find it, but it may be packed away (figures ).


All true.

And to add to your last point about Russia, India and China - China (especially) and India are looking for sources of petroleum and if we can coax Iran away, it'll be one more blow to them, which will help us in the future as China and India quickly rise to "Super Power" status.

Plus, if we can lighten the influence that Russia has on the region by taking Iran out of its pocket, it'll set back Russia several years as well.

An alliance with Iran could do a massive blow to our "enemies" while strengthening our position in the world. We have such an oppurtunity here and it angers me to no end that Bush isn't even TRYING to take advantage of it.


It's a win-win situation, and aside from Akmenijhad, the country as a whole, including those in leadership positions, seem willing to at least negotiate.

We just can't go in with "mandates" and "conditions", imposing our will and telling them they can't enrich uranium. It eliminates their one bargaining chip. It's what North Korea did and it paid off for them... in spades. They get all the oil they can choke down (while continuing to counterfeit US currency) and we get...

...

...

...

... what did we get?


Not to sound like Untouchables or anything... but Israel would probably be miffed by any realtionship we can have with Iran. I'd imagine they would feel pretty... obsolete...

Not only did they test a nuclear device, but they also test fired a long range missile that could (if it didn't fail) strike the west coast of the US. Also, if Israel's bombing of that target in Syria was legitimate, then so was the premise that North Korea gave Syria nuclear weapon technology.

I mean, if ANYone deserved to be invaded and have a regime changed, it was North Korea.

Imagine if Iran even did ONE of those things, let alone all THREE...

The hypocricy is BLINDING!

People say this... but I fail to see why.

Is it cause North Korea has China? We're more relunctant to push the envelope? Iran has... Russia (kinda).

But why is it so different?

...

Don't answer that. I'm gonna make a new thread, cause I wanna hear what other have to say. I'll link it here when I decide what forum I'm putting it in.


Well, I do want Obama... and this is a major reason. Clinton really screwed up when she made the Iranian Republic Guard a terrorist orginization - not cause I don't think they deserve the title, but because it expanded the president's ability to further screw up the Middle East.

Plus health care and a few other reasons - but his foreign policy is the most rational.

Also, according to this study, they say it's "very unlikely" Iran will have enough uranim for a nuclear bomb by "late 2009". I imagine it will be several more years before they have a successful (emphasis here) re-entry vehicle capable of reaching the US.

Sadly coudn't agree more with that predicament. The last few months of elections are  typically a crucial period in US elections to settle the score. All it takes is a little push and then you hear "we told you so".

You are welcome!
Just a little note Abraxas. Try to look at the nuclear issue as a detterent from an iranian's perspective:

1- Both neighbouring countries of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) have been invaded by US and allies since 9/11.
2- Iran was labelled part of the 'axis of evil' in 2001 in Gearge Bush's union speech written by David Frum. Iraq one of the other members is already invaded.
3- North Korea the other member has so far been immune from any attack because it's claimed that it already has atleast one nuclear bomb.
4- Israel had threatened repeatedly that it would bomb Iran's nuclear facility because Iran a is a danger to Israel and the the rest of the international community. The fact that Israel was going to bomb the facility even before Ahmadienejad came into power in 2005 makes all those reasonings about his comments "wipng Israel off the map" immaterial.

I have argued that Ahmadienejad is a product of Bush and the failed policies that could have created rapproachment between the relatively moderate government of Khatami (previous iranian president) and Bill Clinton.

That said even Ahmadienejad is fully aware of the consequences of any attacks on Israel and believe me he is not that stupid.