USA & IRAN Can they Negotiate about their political problems?
481813
Why should the US be the only ones to have nukes in the first place?  Our president wants to claim everyine else is out to use them, when the fact of the matter is that our country is the only one in the world to have actually used them in a war situation.  In my eyes, I see our world as one.  And if one country on the map is allowed to have nukes to defend themselves, then so should everyone else.  We are just another country.  Just another land mass on the map.  Yes, we have more than others, but we also are more arrogant.  I can vouch for that, since I can be pretty stuck up at times.
333706
A war between Iran and US would be a tragedy for both nations. It is not important who wins, it's important how many victims there will be on both sides. At the present technological stage, it should be easy to understand that war must never be an option.
807071
Actually, the president is able to delegate negotiations.\n\nSee Clinton appointing Senator Mitchell to negotiate peace in Northern Ireland.\n\nSuccess!\n\nPerhaps you are on to something here, great question!
402581
It shouldn't be a first option.  The ideal situation would be an internal revolution in Iran, I can't imagine that the average Iranian is terribly happy with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei though the Iranian police state has so far been able to keep them in power.  I think that diplomatic options need to be exhausted before military options are exercised, but it is up to Iran how far this goes.  If they allow the IAEA in to monitor and verify their claim that they are trying to generate Nuclear power for civilian purposes (which all current evidence indicates is not the case) then the world will probably let them do so, however if Iran begins deploying and/or exporting Nuclear Weapons they will have to be stopped, and it would be imprudent to take any option off the table before their intentions are known.
210236
I don't see anything happening over Iran too soon.  Any US president would be insane to start a war with Iran and should be sent to a psychiatric facility immediately.  The EU and NATO definitely won't do anything to piss the Iranians off, Iran has missiles that are within range of their countries.  The UN doesnt have the balls to do anything either (plus you have Russia and China who'll oppose a lot on the Security Council).  Frankly, I think Israel is the only one who can be counted on to do anything at all--which in their case is going to be military action.  That, sadly, is going to drag us (the U.S.), if not Europe, in as well.
691931
consider the politics involved.\nEurope, most of the Americas(  Canada, USA, and south America have means of producing power through nuclear reaction) many "friendly" countries of the middle east and the Asian continent have these means also.\n\npeace may be found if the trouble maker is taken out of negotiations to bring about an agreement between Iran and the EU. along with the UAR.\ni think at this point, Iran poses as much a treat to us as did Iraq had when it's "weapons of mass destruction " were thought to exist.\n we didn't know they didn't. it was a needed excuse to enter a war which we are still "engaged" in.\n how do we know that these allegations aren't false also.\n \n maybe if the accuser is removed so Iran can establish her defense under the eyes of these world unions, we might better understand the exact nature of this situation.\n\nin other words, give Iran a Chance to defend her self without the worry of facing an aggressor while trying to do so.
649307
Niether USA nor Iran want to go to war with the other.  Their respective leaders merely want to make them sound tough to their resppective people.
538476
The Iranian people need to realize the world is behind them{the people , not necessarily their government}. As an American, you probably don't care for me very much, but believe me we're pulling for you to retain your democracy, and your heritage as a tolerant, intelligent people, that  will return to the world stage ,embracing nations and  influencing them for the positive ,as Persia did for so many centuries. I sincerely hope someday, America and Iran, the people can come together. Even though our governments may clash at this point in history, power flows from the people whether those in power believe it or not, and someday the peoples of Iran and the US, even though there may be some differences, will join together for a better world!
322678
Probably not. The US is currently involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cost of attacking Iran could prove to be very, very high. I imagine the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities at some point, should the US not intervene.
495274
Isreal would be able to deal with Iran without too much of a problem.  The real issue would be dealing with the rest of the middle east who will ride the fence until Isreal strikes.  They would not stand by, they would attack and then the US would need to intervene.  What a mess.
625223
USA is keeping Iran under pressure and giving signal to other Middle Eastern and Arab countries not to indulge terrorism. This way, interest of USA is protected by trying to suppress terrorism and controll of the oil price. At the same time, USA will not expect to see the rise of another nuclear power state in the Middle Eastern region especially Iran who has long dispute history with the USA and Israil. In my mind, unless unavoidable circumstances, USA will not go to War as they have found recent experinces from Iraq War.
818230
You make some very good points - and your question is well thought out and written - but I believe the theory that terrorists can be dealt with successfully using diplomacy, negotiation or reasonable dialog was pretty much discounted when President Carter tried these policies during the Iranian hostage crisis.\n\nBefore reasonable dialog can take place, reasonable people must be involved. We are dealing with Islamic radicals - people who would cut your head off just to make another video. \n\nI do agree that more priority must be placed on training and equipping the Iraqi security forces to try and shorten the time needed to get them in position to take over the peace keeping tasks and routing out the terrorists now performed by American troops.\n\nUltimately, the Iraqi people will either stand up and fight for their freedoms and rights, or all of the humanitarian and military aid we can muster will be in vane - regardless of our strategy in this war.
491236
Yeah, but they all say that!! I would hope that we learned our lesson from the mess in Iraq about capriously taking things into our own hands. First off, I believe that Iran is all talk- similiar to that of North Korea, so I think it would be smart to continue diplomacy and get the backing of the world if/when that fails. Rushing in without world support will only lead to more problems.
160752
It is possible. After all they share the region with Israel which has developed a nuclear arsenal, hasn't signed the NPT and has attacked arab states not so long ago. A potential nuclear threat demands to be counterbalanced. Pakistan and India did so, when Pakistan developed nukes India followed suit immediately. There's also the US threat which has led to the occupation of two arab states: Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter was a former Iran ally against Israel.\nOn the other hand, Iran needs nuclear power. Oil reserves won't last forever and the nuclear technology needs time to mature and gradually take over the role of main power supply. This is also good policy because it allows for increased exports (theoretically) and thus make more countries depended on Iran oil (thus increase political influence without military support), given that most countries suffer from oposition to nuclear power.\nFact is: Iran has the right to develop and research nuclear energy under the NPT. Fact is: the USA hasn't provided any proof to sustain allegations that Iran's program is military. They only said that Iran -could- break the NPT, but any country that has an enrichment facility could (that includes UK and US) and this is no grounds to deny  nuclear power (it's sheer hypocrisy since it comes from a country that holds thousands of nukes ready to launch). There are other countries more 'dangeous'. Romania has a nuclear plant, it has an enrichment facility, a research facility with some world-renown nuclear physicists and even more, it has two uranium mines. They have a better chance at building nukes than Iran does, because Iran is mostly importing uranium. Basically, until US brings evidence that Iran is breaking the NPT, USA legally can't and shouldn't do anything. Then again the legality of a course of action never bothered the US.
327106
No. Iran's radical theocrats want a nuclear weapon. (It gnaws at them that Israel has nuclear weapons. It is Israel's nuclear weapons that have deterred attacks from her neighbors.) They have no legitimate need for nuclear energy. They have more than enough oil to cover their energy needs. They use the excuse of a "right" to nuclear technology to drum up support among Iranians for the government (which is otherwise disliked/hated by the majority of Iranians). \n\nIran is stalling for more time to strengthen their bargaining position. (They've done fairly well for themselves thus far. The talks have been ongoing for three years now.) So far they haven't overly miscalculated, but that doesn't mean the world's patience isn't wearing thin. What happens next is up to Iran. Russia and China won't be able to perpetually block meaningful efforts within the UN to address the problem.\n\nI don't think the US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel did so. Contrary to what many think, Israel will do what they feel is in their best interests whether or not the US condones it. What will the fallout be? Not much. There will be condemnations from Arab and Muslim governments, but the Iranians have two things against them. They aren't Arabs, and they aren't Sunnis.
402373
I just spoke with a friend who's preparing to go to Iraq for the military.  Now he's not sure where exactly he'll be headed (Iraq or Iran).  But he and I agree that it is best to address the Iran issue BEFORE it becomes a PROBLEM.  It's easier to fix now than later.
390150
Here's a conversation I had with an Iranian yesterday:\n\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:22:40 PM): hi\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:23:12 PM): i want to talk to you about the question you asked\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:23:28 PM): Sure\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:04 PM): which question?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:35 PM): The question about supporting military action against Iran\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:39 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:45 PM): What do you know about Iran?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:59 PM): And about persian people?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:25:15 PM): I know that the Iranian President wants a war with the United States\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:25:51 PM): so it should cause milions of people and children to die?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:26:11 PM): What, war with the US?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:23 PM): Yes\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:46 PM): The war which hasn't started, and in not going to start\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:27:05 PM): No, I don't believe that. I believe the Iranian government is trying to push the US into a war to prove some kind of point\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:28:04 PM): I don't think Iran's people agree with it, nor do they want a war, when Iran threatens the US or US allies with missile strikes or threatens to take a country out, that is pretty much a call to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:32 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:44 PM): So you mean you support it, right?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:29:06 PM): But, think about this, if someone had a gun and threatened to shoot you, what would you do in reaction?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:29:47 PM): If i knew that the gun isn't real and it cant never hurt me, i wouldn't take a serious reaction\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:30:05 PM): I don't know that I do support it, but I can sympathize with people who are threatened militarily. It doesn't mean I want war, it just means I understand why they feel that way\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:26 PM): So what about us?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:33 PM): What about OUR feelings?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:42 PM): No one cares about them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:31:39 PM): I feel that you are not in disagreement with your government leaders, however I do care about the millions of people caught in the middle, such as yourself. You don't want war any more than our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:07 PM): I don't disagree with the government?!!!\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:24 PM): No one agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:32:35 PM): I don't think it will even become a physical war, just a war of words... like two men who flex their mustles to try to prove who's stronger\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:33:21 PM): So you agree that it's okay to say that your government will wipe a country out of existence?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:28 PM): I think it's pretty obvious that who's stronger, there's no need to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:57 PM): They can't do that ! They can't\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:39 PM): I don't care about them, you can send them to the hell, so that we can breathe easy\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:47 PM): But i'm worried about the people, children, lovers, memories\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:35:49 PM): They're deciding on their own, there's no one who supports or agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:05 PM): Same here, that's why I don't understand why Iran would want to threaten powerful nations like Israel and the US\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:11 PM): Except some stupid people like themselves\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:27 PM): Iran doesn't want this\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:46 PM): Ahmadi nejad wants so\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:54 PM): Neither does the US. I think the only ones that want it are the news media because it means ratings\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:37:48 PM): So what about the people? When are they gonna decide about their own future?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:38:09 PM): who? your people? our people?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:30 PM): our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:54 PM): Yo