Libsmasher, Bunz posed a fair question: instead of talking to them, what would you have us do? We're more or less pushing the limits of economic sanctions as it is, and I sincerely doubt that anyone out there, Obama included, has the dipomacy skills to get everyone else to shut themselves off from Iran.
Consider the advice of Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
The current standoff with Iran carries inherent parallels with the situation in Europe in the latter half of the thirties. Okay, fine. The reason all diplomacy failed with Hitler was that the "big stick" part of the equation was missing. He had absolutely nothing to fear from Britain and France, had little to fear from an isolationist United States, and finally managed to broker a treaty with the Soviet Union.
Today's "negotiations" with Iran aren't going so well because we're not exactly "speaking softly." How do you suppose it makes the Iranians feel, hearing people asking our presidential candidates, "Would you be willing to go to war with Iran?"
Instead, we should focus on the lessons of the fall of the Soviet Union. The other side knew what we were capable of doing to them - they didn't need to be reminded. So, with our big stick in hand, we spoke softly. Even the famous "Tear down this wall!" statement was "soft" in that it did not overtly threaten war; the way in which it was delivered made it seem more a statement of moral necessity than an imperative carrying a threat (Reagan's speechwriters = geniuses).
Those are just my thoughts on the matter. The Bush Administration has demonstrated a complete lack of subtlety around every corner. While that brute logic may have helped in dealing with North Korea, it's gotten us into this mess with Iran. And, to be honest, I'm not sure that at this point all the subtlety in the world could get us out of it.
