I know the Hezbullah/Iran connection rather well....maybe I'm misunderstood.....let me rephrase:

What in world history would lead you to believe it is possible "that Iran would value a friendship with the US enough to moderate their position with regards to Israel?"

What do you suggest in "seed planting" with regards to their nuclear ambitions?

IMO, it's impossible: Hezbullah and Iran are in the same politico-religious entity.

Don't forget that Iran is a religious concept. It forbid any alliance with a western, decadent, immoral country like the US.
Make peace yes (actualy there is peace), but be an ally with the land of Micheal Jackson and Madona, what Ayatholoah would look like after that?

I think we shouldn't ignore the huge cultural differences when dealing with Iran. What the Iranian leadership wants even more than money, is the preservation of power of religion, on which their own power is based.

To defuse the situation we should make abudantly clear that:

-We don't intent to attack, invade or create regime change in Iran.

-We don't intent to alter the morality of the Iranian poeple through cultural influence, human rights, women rights etc

-That beside the nuclear issue, there is nothing to prevent us to hold normal relations.

I would not say "to be friends", because for them that would sounds like an insult.
How do miserable kafirs dare called themselves "friends" of those who embrace the true religion of Allah?
But let's say that since business is better than war, we will not make war.

Could it be the U.S. might value a friendship with Iran and as a result moderate their total support for Israel? Is it possible there are "back door" negotiations going on far
past the possible open attempt at diplomacy? Iran's young population may be the best hope for changes away from the mullahs and toward a more positive future?

While some attempt to focus on Ahmadinejad and his statements related to Israel in particular, are they any more warlike and radical than the possible future elected Prime
Minister of Isarel, Likud's Bibi Netanyahu? 

What is there quite realistically, that is to be gained other than the claim to the "support of the only democratic nation in the ME" which for some remains the mantra? Could it be that Israel and the inner conflicts  there have become not worth the costs internationally.  What about Brown's comments related to the settlements and moving forward with a two-state solution? 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=8c08f5d4-bb4d-435f-a0be-461a9cf2da8f

Quite a difference in the reporting of Brown's statements related criticism of Israel as reported by a Canadian publication and once again the right wing DEBKAfile. It might be hard to recognize that it was the same speech considering the difference in emphasis. 

British PM Brown: Iran has choice of negotiations or isolation

July 21, 2008, 6:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
In the first address to the Knesset by a British prime minister, Gordon Brown said Monday, July 21: We have given Iran a clear choice: Accept our negotiations on its nuclear program or face growing isolation and collective response - not of one nation but many nations.”
The UK, EU and US will work together to prevent Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he said.
The British prime minister went on to say: “It is totally abhorrent for the Iranian president to say Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth. We condemn anti-Semitism and persecution in all its forms. Gordon Brown pledged that his government would “stand foursquare” against any boycott of Israel and Israeli academics. It is vital that every generation learns about the Holocaust, he said.
Brown's spokesman said the premier did not rule out "extended sanctions in some form on the oil and gas sector" in Iran, OPEC's number two producer.
The UK has already proposed sanctions designed to effect Iran's oil production, including refusing to supply spare parts to the Islamic Republic.
Praising Israel’s stunning achievements in 60 years, he said: “We want a state of Palestine that accepts Israel as a friend and neighbor.”
Lasting peace, he said, depended on the Palestinians stamping out "terrorists" and "Israel freezing, and withdrawing from, settlements"." He supported Jerusalem as a capital for both Israel and Palestine.
PM Brown ended his two-day visit to Israel Monday afternoon after top level talks on UK-Israeli cooperation in the business, economic, scientific and education sectors.

 http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5451

Why not moderate the position rather than to create another ME war, most especially considering all that oil?  Just asking. Please note: questions rather than stating an opinion.

I agree with Cryptomaniac that the U.S. and the West should engage Iran and it's people diplomatically. At present, there is an ongoing trade between Iran and the West, so there is some common ground already.

survival at the cost of survival of the others. I don't know any moral doctrine, besides those rooted in voluntarism and social Darwinism, that commands such logic. It if it indeed that "oil decides who lives and who dies", then invasion for oil is a flat murder whereas a vital resource is denied to those to whom it lawfully belongs. But I don't think these wars, factual and speculative, have any thing to do with oil. The thing so widely forgotten is that oil profits are commonly made without military invasions, and that the oil lobby is generally regarded as "pro-Arab" in the US.

The question is whether neocons can rely on Obama to strike Iran. His trend is completely in the direction of war. Obama has "explained" his Iran vision so much that it is barely distinguishable from McCain's. Both say that ALL means must be used, both say that sanctions, harsh sanctions, must be tried first. Both say there is a place for diplomacy. Both say "Israel's security is sacrosanct". Both say if dimplomacy and sanctions fail, force will be used. The only difference is that one is ready to meat directly, and the other says any talks can go only via EU and Russia. I wonder if Obama's drift towards war is a factor in the neocons slowing down the war march, or Iran's refusal to be daunted is the only factor.

Terry, I'm not familiar with all the powers that be in Israel, today nor in the past other than by statements posted on Israeli sources I tend to read on a variety of daily. Because of my lack of familiarity, maybe you are more familiar and could comment on the recent article published on Haaretz?  While some continue to insist on an attack on Iran, even if only accomplished by Israel, apparently this former Mossad chief disagrees. 

Last update - 07:27 26/07/2008         

Report: Ex-Mossad chief says strike on Iran could 'affect us for 100 years'

By Haaretz Service

Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy told Time magazine in an interview published Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran "could have an impact on us for the next 100 years" and should only be considered as a last resort.

Halevy, who currently heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, added that an Iranian attack on Israel would probably have little impact, because Iranian missiles would largely be intercepted by Israel's advanced anti-missile defense system.

Another former senior Mossad official, who reportedly served during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's administration, told the American magazine that "Iran's achievement is creating an image of itself as a scary superpower when it's really a paper tiger."
   
An additional Israeli source told Time that Israel sees the period between the U.S. elections in November and the president's inauguration in January as the "window of opportunity" for a possible attack on Iran. The source explained that any military move against Iran would not be carried out before the elections, because it would negatively impact the presidential candidates, especially Republican candidate John McCain and "No Israel leader wants to be blamed for destroying the Republican chances," Time cited the source as saying.

However, the magazine quoted intelligence sources as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would likely stall the Islamic republic's nuclear aspirations only by "a year or two."

Launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards, which makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1005579.html