President Obama released a video today, reaching out in a cautious way to Iran. From the Washington Post:
The White House said the United States still has serious differences with Iran, particularly on the threat a nuclear-armed Tehran poses to the region. But aides said the president’s message was a way to speak directly to Iranians about the U.S. commitment to work with the country.
The video also was as much an attempt to reach out directly to the Iranian people as it was a gesture toward the country’s leadership. While Obama has advocated direct diplomacy with Tehran, he also has said there are multiple elements within Iran with whom the United States could have a dialogue.
Does this outreach do any good for the U.S.? It certainly puts us on a different trajectory than the Bush policy. And after the U.S. invasion of Iraq the Iranians have had a new swagger in their neighborhood. Can diplomacy bring a peaceful resolution to the festering Iranian nuclear problem? And with Benjamin Netanyahu poised to take over in Israel will the President be able to forestall an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities? Good questions, hard answers.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
1. Iran will use an Atomic weapon on Israel if they can make one. This is not a minor concern for Israel. It is a small country and would be destroyed in a single attack. Israel will take actions to protect its population.
2. From an Iranian perspective I see nothing we can offer that would satisfy them. At this point they are at the center of middle east power. They influence Syria and through them, Lebanon and the various well healed terror armies. what can Obama offer? Don’t forget, the President of Iran has ten times the street smarts of our guy.
I see a coming attack on Iranian’s nuclear facilities. I am concerned that Iran has already made defensive moves that Israel may not be able to overcome.
There is a decent chance of Nuclear war.
Jules
LikeLike
In the end, you have two choices to solve a problem:
1) Talk it through, or
2) Bomb the crap out of it until it goes away.
Unfortunately, we’ve had ample evidence over the last 40 years or so that option 2) is expensive and can have unfortunate consequences, so it’s good that option 1) is being explored.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
What happens if Israel get blown up while we are talking?
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
Israel is more than capable of defending itself. The use of an actual nuclear weapon in the Middle East by any nation would be ultimately self defeating, as the offending nation would cease to exist (with a fair amount of collateral damage).
And, to tie this back to your friend Mr. Bush, he himself invited this situation, by:
1) declaring Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil, and they noted the difference that a nuclear North Korea was treated versus a non-nuclear Iran. In other words, if you want to maintain sovereignty, you had better develop nuclear weapons, and
2) by removing Iraq as a balance to Iran, we’ve effectively promoted Iran to be the new military power in the Middle East (besides Israel). Guess Cheney should have thought of that. Oh, wait, he probably did, but then noted how much more profitable for his buddies in the defense industry it would be to keep a perpetual war in the Middle East going (my cynicism knows no bounds in this area).
In the end, until the Israeli-Palestinian issue is solved (and I mean with a free and independent Palestine), there is risk to all people living in the Middle East, which in the end is only solved by diplomacy.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Your argument is dictated by your political paranoia with Bush. Iran had been working on nuclear research for decades. Israel blew up the French supplied Atomic power station. Bush recognized the problem and called a spade a spade. Your mindless hate spewing garbage is meaningless.
We will see if your hero can talk the Iranian out of their evil intent. I see no advantage for Iran to change its direction. They will, however, have fun with Obama and Hillary.
For your information, Iran’s policies are based on religious jihad thus any collateral damage is acceptable to them.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
Not sure I agree: when I mention the last 40 years or so, I’m including our involvement in places like Vietnam, where we were convinced that without our military involvement, the Communists would take over the world. Well, after 57,000 American and a couple million Vietnamese lives, they did take over Vietnam, but the world didn’t come to an end, did it?
I think you’re confusing Israel’s attack on Iraq’s reactor in 1981: there hasn’t yet been an attack on an Iranian reactor, this being their first.
My arguments are dictated by observations, not by mindless paranoia. I’ll leave that to you.
Keep on thinking you can blow up areas of the world to bring people to your point of view: of course, they’re more apt to listen to you via coercion and at the point of a gun.
Not.
It’s one of the reasons your party is out of power and hopefully, remains so for the foreseeable future. Yet another elephantine mess to clean up.
Tag, you’re it!
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
You are right, the Israelis bombed the Atomic power plant in Iraq. The point is the same, Israel did act to deter a potential Apocalypse. It also appears that Israel bombed a location in Syria. Very little has been heard about that especially from Syria.
Now the situation is worse. Iran has spreaad out it’s nuclear facilities and hardened them,and they have developed missIle technology to deliver the bombs.
WHEN THINGS COME TOGETHER THEY WILL BOMB ISRAEL. THE MOTIVE IS LARGELY RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND WILL NOT BE DETERRED BY ANYONE.
I’m done.
LikeLike
Jules:
I’m sorry, you seem passionate.
I guess I’ll just answer we’ll see. And I hope your fears do not come to pass.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I would wager a guess that Jules is still drinking the right-wing lemonade analogous to the lemonade this country was intravaneously fed at the time the war machine was gearing up for an Iraq invasion. We ALL know now how that intelligence was doctor…, er, flawed, and what the outcome of that was.
My guess is that ‘passion’ that you hear coming from Jules, you would also hear if you had the desire/fortitude to listen to the Bill O’Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Jay Severin/et al blowhard machines talking about Obama extending an olive branch to Iran.
Of course, if I were Obama, I’d be more concerned with North Korea actually having a nuclear weapon, rather than Iran having the capability to develop one some years down the road. Thank God that GWB took appropriate action with North Korea so we don’t have to worry about those commies anymore!!!
LikeLike
Yes on Korea old W was called out by none other than former W Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. I am not sure, but I think Bolton at least implied that W was a pinko sympathizer. I did not realize that W ran in the same circles as Fred and Jim.
LikeLike
Jim,
Tune into WRKO Monday. Hear yourself slamming the receiver down on Todd. Great moment.
Played again and again.
Jules.
LikeLike
Thanks Mayro. Just thinking of that two-toned walrus with the M.A.D mentality makes me want to throw up.
Does he have a talk show Jules can tune into?
LikeLike
Jim:
Did you see W at the last meeting? Thought I noticed a lot of barefoot people, may have been a coincidence …
Hey, you know, North Korea has missile technology good enough to reach Alaska. Good thing we have an early warning system up there, someone tell Sarah to start lookin’ towards Russia …
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Those barefoot people were the ones he left behind in economic misery in this country. I can sense your confusion as their thin malnourished bodies could also be mistaken for many other third world countries as well. Not to worry though, come 2012, the righties will rewrite history and say it was all Obama’s fault.
And I hear you on the early warning system in Alaska. I’m hopeful it remains there for a VERY long time…
LikeLike