Difficult foreign policy question---about Iran?

Firstly, I don't think that "not requiring any expectations" and "without preconditions" mean exactly the same thing.

Secondly, it is absolutely unheard of for America to not try diplomacy first..

Many young people in America are not armed with a solid understanding of American history (thanks to funding withdrawals from public education) and they don't understand that our way of dealing with threats is to have discussions with foreign leaders in an effort to PREVENT hostility and not encourage it.

This new Republican Fascist Militia mentality that Bush/McCain are advocating is very dangerous considering that we too are losing emotional support and economic standing in the world.

It is also important when discussing "nuclear capabilities" to understand the VAST difference between powering your communities with nuclear energy and obtaining weapons-grade nuclear arsenals... I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to give Iran a bunch of nukes, but there is no reason that he can't keep reactors in his own country (which would be more dangerous to Iran than to anyone else because each one creates an explosive "bulls eye" should anyone strike them with small missiles).

I think Iraq showed that shoot first and talk later is a bad choice. Sure, sometimes military actions are necessary, but it has to be the last option. The US just can't go around removing leaders they don't like, no matter how awful they might be. The Iraq war demonstrated that. If there is no strong opposition that is backed by the majority of the people to take over, than removing the leader is not going to solve anything. The country will become less stable, with years and perhaps decades of civil war to follow. Unless the invading forces stay there forever as the case in Iraq, and is that really something we want again? Since the war on terror began, terrorism acts have risen in the world, not declined. I know talking doesn't solve everything, and when it does it is a much slower progress than war and invasion, but it makes for a more stable region in the long run. We need to realize that democracy is not the solution to everything, and that it cannot be forced upon people that do not want it/are not ready for it. The best we can do is try and push Iran and other similar countries in the right direction with sanctions, and try to help change coming from within the country. But the people of Iran has to make change happen when they're ready for it, we can't force it on them. If the Iraq war taught us anything, it should be that. Yes, Ahmadinejad is an awful person and president and yes, if they start making real threats of nuclear attacks than perhaps at some point we need to consider other options. But punishing the entire country for something they have not yet even threatened to do is crazy and will only make the situation worse, and it's a bit hypocritical that the country with the most nuclear war heads in the world wants to forbid other countys from even using nuclear power. Again, not saying Iran is a friendly country, just that force at this point will only make things worse.

Will Romney hope he can just foxtrot on his team of thoroughbreds around difficult foreign policy problems with North Korea and Iran?

I'm for talking to Iran. There's no harm in doing that, and if we can't agree on anything we simply walk away.

One thing few people seem to know or remember is that Iran helped us out quite a bit in Afghanistan early on in the invasion. It wasn't because they "liked" us, it was because they had a common interest in seeing the Taliban replaced with a more moderate government. Despite all the harsh rhetoric and hurt feelings on both sides, the US and Iran do share some common interests, and we should build on that.

Iran's oil producing infrastructure is antiquated, inefficient and in danger of collapsing. It's so bad they could become an oil importer soon, despite siting on 10% of the world's reserves! What would happen if the US approached them with a deal to modernize their oil industry in exchange for them dropping their nuclear program? Then they could benefit from higher oil revenues, while the increased output drops oil prices for us and the rest of the world.

sticks and stones can break your bones but words cant hurt you..america attacked iran, overthrew their democracy and democratically elected leader, stole their oil and supported the shah and now threatening them again for nationalizing their oil again..iran hasnt attacked any country in 200 years..you can act disgusted and walk out of all the speeches you want..ive seen americans get worked up and disgusted and freak out over things like a bad call at a football game, or their groomer gave their poodle a bad haircut too.. while real atrocities like rape and torture at abu grabe they make jokes about so so what ..let them walk out it means nothing..should you talk to people? is that a real question ? how do you know what youre arguing about if you dont ? you mean should you let them talk so people will know their side of the story?demand what changes? iran has never attacked the us ..leave them alone ..preemptive strike is for satan worshipers ..you have the right to defend yourself only..youre lucky anyone is talking to americans at all. you should all be on trial in an international court for supporting war crime=torture and the bloody coup d'tet you just did on iraq

HI!

I find that foreign policy ought to be considered more like kindergarten. THink about it. Let's say that it's time to color in our coloring books and the person next to you grabs the last green crayon, which is the color you wanted.

To a five year old, it might seem perfectly okay to punch that other kid in the stomach over a crayon, but I would like to believe that we are all better than five year olds, lol.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is if you punch the other kid you're just going to get sent to time out and you still don't have that green crayon.

Just apply that back to the whole foreign-policy-thing.

That's what I think anyway.

"Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate" JFK

Ahmadinejad is a stooge. He has no real power. That limits you. But there is no reason that we can't normalize relationships with Iran. They were initially helpful when we knocked off Afgahanistan.

Their ex-pats are bright, well-educated and hard working. If those in Iran share the same qualities, it would be good to get them on our side.

I note that Iran has its own internal problems. It would be in our best interests to have a more normal relationship so that they can't use us as an excuse. Right now, we have no leverage with them. Let's talk and gain some leverage.

Remember when he wrote us a letter and we didn't even respond? Why can't HE ask for "pre-conditions?" Why do we set all the terms here? Everyone is just dodging him because he is pointing at things which are true if you would only take the time to look into them.

Uranium enrichment. In all of human history, who was the first to drop an a-bomb on someone else?

Israel. Why are we friends with them? (Hint: its not just because are nice guys)

Don't worry, both of them want to take over the middle east so you will see a war with Iran either way.

Making friends is started by talking. Before, even war before it is proclaimed, starts with talks. War and peace may depends on the motives of the talkers I guess.

"Ahmadinejad himself has indicated to Larry King"

what? Larry King does not spare anything for ratings