Since the embassy hostage crisis in the 80's the US has been closed to direct negotiations with Iran.  Iran also remained closed to direct negotiations due to US and Western countries allowing Iraq to use chemical weapons upon them during the Iran-Iraq war.
218500
Iran is an odd case.  Up to about three years ago relations between the US and Iran were thawing.  Although both nations were making loud public statements denouncing the other there were several agreements reached (for example when Iran promised to allow any US military aricraft in distress the right to land at an iranian airfield).\n\nIf Iran were not stupidly getting the entire world upset at them with their nuclear projects - I would expect that the US and Iran would be discussing re-opening diplomatic relations.\n\nThe problem Iran has is that the people running the country are not popular and need something to distract the Iranian people's attention away from thier internal policy failures and poor economic performance.  \n\nIMO what we need to do is just wait them out.
292921
If it were simply a matter of ejecting Iran out of another country, in the same way that Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after the first Gulf War then the USA could easily do it using its existing forces.\n\nHowever, if you are talking about the USA invading Iran then it is a completely different ball game.\n\nThe USA is already struggling to crush militants within Iraq. Even if it were to throw ALL of it existing forces + reserves into Iraq it would still be unable to stop many of the acts of terrorism such as roadside bombs, mortar attacks, snipers, hit & run raids, etc. Basically, that's why it hasn't sent every spare soldier into Iraq - there is no enemy army to fight. It is now a case of fighting the local militias, none of whom wear uniforms or act in the conventional manner of an army.\n\nEnemy troops can easilly be bombed from the air or nutralized with ground forces. Insurgents hiding in doorways or amongst a crowd can't be dealt with in that way, not unless you are planning to commit genocide by slaughtering everyone in sight.\n\nNo, if the USA invades Iran then it will face a similar problem to that currently being experienced in Iraq, but on a much larger scale due to the fact that Iran is around 4 to 5 times larger than Iraq, with a more hostile population. Unlike Iraq, the population of Iran aren't crying out to be liberated.\n\nLast time the USA got involved millitilly in Iran was when it tried unsuccessfully to rescue its hostages being held in the US embassy by Iranian militants. The rescue attempt was a complete disaster and has often been compared with The Bay of Pigs fiasco.\n\nThe other problem that the US would face is that many more Arab countries would see it as yet another attack on Muslims thereby helping to generate more support for Arab terrorism, and even greater hatred for the USA. You would have wannabe suicide bombers queuing up, ready to blow themselves up along with the American "infidels" in the streets of New York, Chigaco, Dallas and the like.\n\nBasically, the USA doesn't really want to get involved in Iran, but they can't afford to allow them to build a nuclear weapon, more so when the Presiden of Iraq has already declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
591808
Iran is thinking just one thing: its REGIME. The viability of its regime is the forefront problem. Iran doesn't need any nuclear energy, has many too oil and gas reserves. But it is afraid of US's democratic tellings would attract Iranian people, who want a deep regime change and want more liberty. In Iran the supreme authority is the Religious Leader: Hamaney. Hamaney demands one thing from the US: the guarantee of the religious regime of Iran. If this is met, then Iran would stop its nuclear program at just that moment. But it seems that the situation is worsening, I think it will be too late for both sides. Because I have a thesis, an Iran-US war (I think won't be such a war but if) would cause not a winner but two losers. This would change the history of all middle east and US. It would destroy all histories...
219302
The US doesn't WANT to bomb Iran, however, the US also does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  If other efforts to get Iran to stop their nuclear development program fails, the US will feel it has no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear program by force.\n\nHope that isn't too long-winded for you.
615028
Aren't there Australian consulates or embassies in Iraq? I know there were before the Gulf War, not really sure what the situation is like now.\n\nIf the situation is that bad, you can try contacting any Western embassy to see if they might provide asylum. The EU has a standing policy on asylum-seekers, so you might have luck if you contact any of their consulates.
586224
Yes I was in the Navy at that time and it made me mad as hell that we didn't do anything.  We actually had good relations with the Shah of Iran until Ayatollah Khoheimi took over the country and the radical students stormed the embassy taking Americans hostage for 444 days under the watch of Jimmy Carter.  That was a major reason the terroists are the way they are today.  Some believe that one of the leaders who stormed the embassy is Irans president today with the crazy last name.  I think we should have ripped them to pieces back then.
195295
It has a lot to do with the run up to the Iran conflict, loss of output from Iraq and the growing needs of developing countries (China & India) for petroleum.  What's really amazing is the the disinterest in the United States for alternative energy and the oil industry's continued collusion with automakers and government to keep us from using that technology.  Greed, power and stupidity sums it up nicely.
517293
The Civil War, the Cold War, and some nifty little operations like when Grenada was taken.  American students were there and would likely have been killed.  The public didn't even hear about it until the U.S. military had taken control of the island and rescued  the students.  Reagan took care of that with executive authority.\n\nThe Demonrats of old were not pacifists.  The party is not the same as it was then.  So your statement about the past is not relevant to the parties of today.\n\nClinton never solved anything after terrorist acts or dealt with the Middle East problems the whole 8 yrs he was in the Oval Office.  Oh... wait... .he was too busy.\n\nAt least Bush is trying to deal with the situation in Iraq.... and given enough time has a chance to resolve it.  That is.... if peace can ever be brought to the Middle East.  If not.... no Demonrat could do any better.  They are quick to criticize, but offer no plans of their own.  Their "plan" but be to just pretend it isn't there and it will go away.\n\nSue
220605
Iran has successfully out-manouvred the US at every stage of this developing crisis. They've done so through skillful diplomacy, using rhetoric aimed more at their allies than at the West, thus building a huge Worldwide backing, not out of support for Iran, but out of common hatred for the bully boy tactics of Bush America. \n\nAmerica has no answer to the Iranians because it understands  only one response to its belligerence. America expects States to roll over and surrender to its might. When this doesn't happen America can't cope. Iran knows this and is having enormous fun making America look ridiculous. Its all a game and America is losing every move.\n\nIran also knows America is not a serious military threat. America would be taken apart if it tried to take on Iran because the whole Islamic World would be aligned with Iran in a flash. So what does America have to do? It can do only one thing: Start treating Iran with respect and negotiate a settlement as a partner in this little World instead of acting the bully boy.
591953
This is an awesome question. I see what you mean by the tactics. Iran is surrounded. I think it may have been just dumb luck though.
542449
I agree that this is obvious.  Iraq was probably the hegemon in the Middle East before the US invasion, though Iran had already been clamoring for increased power and influence in the region.  Now that Iraq has fallen into great turmoil, Iran now has an opportunity to increase its influence and establish itself as the leading Muslim nation, much as the US is considered the leading democratic nation.  Iran has much to gain from a destabilized Iraq, and is thus contributing to the violence through weapons sales.
285122
Wow, kucitizenx! You aren't really that naive, are you? When has Iran EVER told the truth in the past? I'm happy to have a president that doesn't sell nuclear secrets to people who hate America, like the last president we had.\n\nAs to the actual question posed, I don't think there is a true diplomatic solution. They talk, they don't talk, they argue until they're blue in the face, but nobody ever resolves things. The people who talk aren't the ones who suffer. Diplomatic is just another word for aristocratic, isn't it?
220916
Yes - Politics. Russia is not cooperating with US efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (I really detest Cheney and Co. but I think they have a point that Iran shoul dnot have nuclear weapons, and if the UN can the the tool of deterring Iran, that would be great.  The US does NOT want to go war in Iran - they don't have th esoldiers to go to war in IRaq and Afghanistan.  They therefore want the UN to pressure Iran to srop their program, and Russia is blocking this as it has a veto on the UN security council which would be responsible for acting).\n\nCheney is therefore showing Russia that if they don't cooperate, he can cause problems for them too. It is NOT ideology: after slamming Russia he went to Kazakhstan, where the political situation is worse than Russia, and was very friendly, mostly because Kazakhstan has oil, is in Central Asia (the US lost its base in Kazakhstan's neighbor Uzbekistan and may lose its base in another neighbor Kyrgyzstan). All of these Central Asian states are near Afghanistan and Iran.
289930
Good question. It's just harassment and Russia isn't going along with the program. Do you think George Bush could screw up 60 years of negotiations with the cold war with Iran? I do.
67576
Because the US is a prick who thinks they can control the world. The US is like the evil person in James Boind movies. They think they are very powerful and want to take over the world. Iran is like James Bond. In they end the evil person dies and Bond gets laid.
156381
Russian and China will either abstain or diplomatically stall this process in the Security Council. This may be a victory for Iran. While we are sitting here in the U.S. the politics of international affairs is presenting a different angle. A different tune is being drummed in the Middle East and Asia. It's being hoped by Iran and Pakistan that China will silently stall or veto in the Security Council. \n\nBoth Iran and China have historic ties to China. The only country which may be hoping for a security council action would be India. India would dare not interfere in Iran, Pakistan and China's affairs. If you are uncertain about this, please look this up in some history text book or encyclopedia.\n\nEvents are more complicated than they appear and Iran knows that it can stall this process. Relations between the U.S. and Russia aren't all that peachy as well. The last think the United States wants is military action. This will be a colossal mistake in the history of American foreign policy, much worse than Vietnam or Iraq. Iran has a much older history and roots its pride back to Alexander and the Persian Empire. They do not like to be told what to do and how to do it. The only people who can or should be talking to them is Pakistan and China because of close historic ties.\n\nThe Bush administration needs to get Pakistan involved in this diplomatic effort. Iran does not have decent relations with China, it has a "strong" relationship with it.\n\nThe west needs to look at Iran from a different angle because if a wrong step is taken, there will be a major moslem uprising in the Middle East. They will perceive it as a war against Islam. The effects will be felt all across Europe and North America. \n\nThe only group of people who will say "No" are Americans. They think that economics will trump eastern philosophy, culture, history and domestic politics.\n\nKeep this good discussion rolling!
347698
The Consortium\nBut the Clinton administration has defended the policy as legal, arguing that the ... When American diplomats were seized as hostages in November 1979, ...\nhttp://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story12.html \n\nFresh Approach Needed in Seeking Saddam's Demise\n... negotiated the 1981 release of US diplomats held hostage by Iran, ... During the Clinton administration's stand-off with Saddam, a 36-year-old CIA ...\nhttp://www.franksmyth.com/.../da5b0adfceafdd9d85256b6c00561188/f6e8f73f6b30ddc285256b7b0079066f?OpenDocument \n\n03. Security Policies\nDuring the Clinton administration, the Department also recruited ... Shortly thereafter, all of the U.S. hostages were released from captivity unharmed. ...\nhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/8519.htm \n\nNational Committee on American Foreign Policy\nIn 1996 President Clinton signed legislation designed to strengthen the sanctions. ... during which 53 diplomats were taken hostage and held for 444 days, ...\nhttp://www.ncafp.org/projects/MiddleEast/IranUSmar02.htm