Is this mike on?

[Banquo's Ghost]

There will always be some doubt and they're perfectly aware of that. Thus, your original statement that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon out of fear of retaliation in kind falls flat doesn't it?

Not really. If you can't see why, there's no arguing with you.

Again, DPRNK showed how effective buying enemies off is. They may stop for a moment, but then they'll continue doing whatever they like- if they're caught again, they can "negotiate" for more extortion money. Meaningful sanctions would be a useful tool- but the UN again shows its uselessness with Russia/China blocking anything close to that. You seem to think that "diplomacy" consists of all carrot and no stick.

Whilst DPRNK is not a typical situation due to the nature of the regime, you do have a point. Iran however, has a lot of vested interests in the stability of the region. They are players, and we should explore that. In contrast, your president's strategy is all stick and no carrot - except that his "stick" has been shown to be about as dangerous a weapon as the aforementioned vegetable.

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it?

Well, they were remarkably helpful to you when you invaded Afghanistan don't you think? And I know he was a good buddy at the time, but it was the Iranians who helped keep Saddam Hussein's ambitions in check for a long time in the 1980s. Since the US has demonised them in spite of the help given after 9-11, they are pursuing their goals without you. I just don't see why it's so impossible to talk to these guys, however hard it might be.

I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq? There's a fair chance that Ahmadinejad may go away in the next elections, but do you think he's the one that's approving their nuclear program or their actions in Iraq? He couldn't make decisions like that without approval from Iran's real leaders. It's his public statements that are getting Ahmadinejad into hot water.

I wonder how many Iranians have been killed by US-armed puppets like the Shah and Saddam Hussein since the CIA toppled Mossadeq?

As for the theocracy, you are certainly right that there are many that approve Ahmadinejad's antics, but also plenty that do not. The vast majority of Iranians, clerical or civilian, do not want a war with the US. We need to give the moderates leverage because threatening with no other options only stiffens national resolve, just as in any other country.

If you are saying that the shadow of military action should be hinted at in the background to any talks, I would support you, but presently the only offer to the Iranians is "do everything we demand first and then we might, perhaps, let you beg at our table." No government will bow down to that sort of nonsensical twaddle - least of all when the demands are being made by a paper tiger in big trouble.

The US needs to quit bullying and start being realistic. It may come to war eventually, but war should not be the starting point - not least because any war will damage US interests far, far more than they are damaged already. I would have thought even dedicated Bushies would be tired of Americans returning in flag-draped coffins for no reason by now, but perhaps not.