It seems to me that, in an ideal world, there are three options for dealing with Iran. The US can engage them in a muscular diplomatic effort with friends, allies, and UN Security Council colleagues in tow to compel Iran to do the right thing and avoid being isolated in the world; this option, by the way, has not been put into action - in any way, shape, or form over the last thirty years - by the Bush administration or by any administration before it; this would seem be the option favored by most rational thinking people, especially considering the events of the past seven years and the resulting lack of US credibility;

Another option would be to simply endure the status quo - I can't imagine that there would be many subscribers to that proposition.

Finally, we come to the option of war - if that can be called an option at all. Frankly, in my not so humble opinion, that option is not only off the table, it's not even in the room - or the building, for that matter...for anyone, that is, with half a pea brain. Of course, that would exclude anyone in the Vice President's office, among others.

My hope would be that, in an ideal world, we can tread water on this issue long enough to see us through the rest of the Bush administration and then begin a smart Iran policy with the next administration.

In the real world, however, we cannot look at US policy in Iran in isolation from what is happening in the region and in the world. Hopefully, the next administration has a very wide angle view of the world and of all the global challenges that face it.

I'll only address the parts that pertain to this discussion..

As much as I support Obama, I have to re-iterate McCain's question.

What is there to talk to Iran about??

Or, more accurately, what is there to talk to Iran about that hasn't already been talked about?

I mean, honestly. Do you think that this issue hasn't been talked to death. Does anyone HONESTLY think that Bush **WANTS** to nuke Iran back to the stone age?? Diplomatic efforts are always preferable ***IF THEY PRODUCE POSITIVE AND LASTING RESULTS***..

But there comes a point when enough is enough...

If Iran and the US hasn't found common ground in the last 30 years, what makes ANYONE think that, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, there is going to be a koom-bye-yaa moment that will have Ahjmenwhatsahoosits and Bush embracing like long lost kin??

The US was able to break the back of the Soviet Union thru military pressure that begat economic pressure..

That type of pressure won't work with Iran. That much is obvious.

Michale.....

I really have to run, but I'll leave you with this link to a recent speech by the leader among Democrats on foreign policy (including Iran) and national security...and the next Vice President with Special Portfolio on Iraq, if Senator Obama is half as smart as he thinks he is...

http://biden.senate.gov/press/speeches/speech/?id=bbf079c9-554e-4acd-b5cf-61d4f65fc7bf

Have a great weekend!

(pardon the crudity)

...to either shit or get off the potty.

A nuclear armed Iran is a no-go from word one. It simply cannot be allowed to happen.

This being the case, it seems an armed DIRECT conflict with Iran is inevitable.

I say DIRECT because we are, at this time, already in a covert armed conflict with Iran. It's only a matter of time before the covert becomes the overt.

I have to wonder where will the Democratic Party stand then?

Michale.....

Of course, I have little faith that President Bush (I'm not bashing, here...just lamenting) and his foreign policy team have the capacity, or even the inclination, to carry out such a smart Iran policy.

OK, outside the box it is... :)

OK, let's start with some common ground. Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone else, feel free to chime in. This is a group thing.. :D (Don't get me started!! :D)

1. We both agree that a long term presence in Iraq is inevitable and necessary. We broke it, we gotta fix it.

2. A Vietnam-style bug out would not serve the security interests of the United States or it's allies.

3. The politics of the region negate a quick fix.
"They've been fighting for two thousand years. They're bound to get tired soon!!"
-Don't Mess With The Zohan
(A thoroughly stupid and moronic movie. Don't waste your time...)

4. Weakness (as it is perceived by the region) is a non-option...
"If the Romulans are off-shoots of my Vulcan blood and I think this likely, then weakness is something we dare not show."
-Spock, BALANCE OF TERROR
(Boy, I am on a roll tonight!!! :D )

So, given the assumption that these are accurate, what are the possibilities??

A massive and over-powering show of force.. IE Shock & Awe II???
Not doable by our current capabilities. The most we could probably acheive is a noogie and mild interest...

Diplomatic overtures I think are useless as well.. Both sides have painted themselves into a corner with the rhetoric. Any diplomatic overtures from one side will simply be viewed by the other side as a stalling tactic... And probably that is exactly what it would be.

Frankly, the best avenue I see is also can be found in a movie quote.

"You don't fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog."
-THE SEIGE

Michale

Your last comment made me laugh...out loud! You really should consider taking that show on the road.

I love to think outside the box - let’s do it!

I think it is absolutely necessary to have a SOFA in Iraq - let’s face it, the US military will be in Iraq for a long time, anyway you slice it...no matter who occupies the White House.

However, I don’t agree that having “staging areas right in Iran’s face” is necessarily the definition of a smart Iran policy. Frankly, I don’t think that military action in Iran - at this juncture, at least - is even ‘on the table’, so to speak For many reasons, the best way forward now in Iran is through direct engagement with the Iranian government with a focus on conduct change as opposed to regime change. For example, the Bush administration should be working with Iran much the same way as they are engaging with North Korea.

Such a policy toward Iran would in no way be giving the Iranian leadership a blank check or the freedom and time to do what they will. Because, you are so right - that would not be in the interests of the US or any of its allies. I don’t believe for a second that you are suggesting that there are only two options here - without having staging areas in Iran’s face OR giving them free reign. There are a lot of possibilities that exist between those two extreme positions, I am sure you would agree. Let’s really think outside the cramped box of partisanship and talk about some of those!

True, true..

But you can't blame Bush for wanting to get something concrete before the Dems go in and frack things all to hell, now can you?

Michale.....

Yeah, I don’t think there is any chance of an agreement, SOFA or long-term security and economic arrangement, being put in place without Iraqi support or Senate consent. That’s not to say that some sort of SOFA isn’t absolutely necessary because it is...even if it’s just an extension of the current UN mandate. But, the bush-CHENEY administration has really gone off the deep end if they think they can do this on their own - and get away with it!

I would also be surprised if the Iraqi government, as it is currently structured, lasts as long the Bush administration - another complication in the very tricky business of negotiating a SOFA in the midst of a civil war.

Let's try and think "outside the box" for a second.

Let's ignore all the partisanship and petty "He said TO-MAY-TOE instead of TO-MAA-TOE" nitpicking crap and look at thing objectively..

Does anyone here see the ADVANTAGES to having a SOFA agreement with Iraq??

Does ANYONE think that Iran is, after 30 years if hysterical USA hatred, suddenly going to make nice and become a responsible member of the world community??

Seriously, does ANYONE think that??

Of course not.

That being the case, doesn't it make a whole lot of sense, militarily, to have staging areas right in Iran's face??

To put it in historical perspective (but at the risk of invoking a Godwin) imagine if the US had "occupied" Czechoslovakia (and if you think I spelled that right w/o a spell checker, yer nutz!! :D) in 1938. Imagine how Hitler and the Nazis would have been stopped cold if wolves were in Czechoslovakia instead of sheep...

Ya'all can indulge in all the Bush bashing you want. But it won't change the fact that it IS a scary world out there right now. With scary people and scary countries bent on very scary things..

Giving these psychotic dictators a blank check (ooooo, THAT is gonna come back to haunt me! :D) and the freedom and time to do what they will is NOT in the interests of the USA or any western democracy..

And, if ya'all could think outside the partisan box, you would know this to be true.

I have spent the better part of my adult life in two branches of the US Armed Forces and working civilian Security and Law Enforcement. I can assure you with complete honesty and utter conviction that letting countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea have free reign is tantamount to suicide.

Michale.....

And the DOWN side to that would be....??? :D

Especially if you get a "Jim Carrey" cable guy instead of Larry.. yuk yuk yuk :D

Michale.....

The good news in all of this is that there's just no way the Iraqi parliament is going to go for it. The closer we get to having a new president, the less likely it is they'll accept it, too. Bush can pressure Maliki, but he can't put the screws to every member of the Iraq parliament.

-CW

heh heh.

Yeah, except when you call the cable guy, the 101st Airborne shows up instead...

:-)

-CW

Here are a couple more links that may be of interest.

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=c3ad16dd-697e-4fed-96c9-2a177ee3f206

http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/BidenStatement080410a.pdf