As has been pointed out, Reagan was hardly a friend of Iran. The hostages for arms deal was part of a plan to keep two regional powers at war with each other while getting back Americans taken illegally by Iran (we were giving Iraq intelligence data at the same time).

The idea that talking with Iran will resolve their belligerence is hopelessly naive. Iran is an ancient culture with a very long history of imperialist behavior and a recent history of continuous violence against its enemies through terrorism. Add that to the religious fanaticism of the leadership, and you have a very dangerous set of motivations.

Note that Saddam Hussein was so afraid of Iranian imperialism that he pretended to have WMD's to bluff the Iranians, even though that lead to the war that ultimately caused his death. He stated this after his capture. His American interrogator naturally asked why he made sure the world was certain he had WMD's, when he did not. He could easily have cooperated with the inspectors in a way that showed he did not have the weapons, but instead ordered his government to thwart them.

Iran is the most significant sponsor of terrorism in the world - both Sunni and Shiite (even though they hate the Sunnis). It has terrorist arms such as Hezbollah, and assists other terror groups including Al Qaeda - in spite of religious and ethnic (Arab vs Persian) differences. It is actively fighting the US in Iran, with Iranian Al Quds special operations soldiers being killed, IN IRAQ, on a daily basis, and the most effective weapon against US troops being the Iranian made EFP IED.

With nuclear weapons, Iran becomes a nation impervious to coercion, thus making their imperialism and religious jihadism far more dangerous. For example, they might unleash Hezbollah for terror attacks within the US once we are unable to retaliate against them. They would threaten the world's energy supplies in order to extort concessions - sure that they would not be attacked.

Talking with them isn't going to change this. A nation which puts so much of its money into a weapons program, when its economy is failing, is hardly going to change its mind because somebody whispers sweet nothings in the ears of "moderates." The idea that diplomacy can solve all problems is a honey trap - it tastes so good, but it is so foolish

The real question with Iran is whether the apocalyptic mahdiism of its president will cause it to launch a nuclear war against Israel (as recommended by #2 Ayatoolah Rafsanjani), or provide nukes to terrorists to set off in the US, or whether it will just use its nuclear leverage to increase its power and its almost 30 year old campaign of murder of civilians through terrorism.

The idea that Republicans need Iran because Republicans thrive on a hostile enemy is silly. If it were true, Republicans would be doing great right now, since the US has so many dangerous enemies in the world - Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, China. It might seem that Iranian hardliners would be happier with a hostile US. Repressive regimes (unlike that in the US) often use nationalism engendered by outside threats as a way to maintain power over their population.

However, the Iranians have the capability to generate external threats at will, no matter what party holds the US presidency. The difference is that a Republican like McCain might actually take retaliatory or pre-emptive action, thwarting Iran's imperialist goals and extremely dangerous nuclear potential, while a Democrat will not do anything until it is too late.

Probably the most dangerous event that could happen in today's world is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. And it will most likely happen by 2010 unless Iran is stopped, by whatever means it takes. Those who do not recognize this threat, and the dynamics surrounding it, are in a state of psychological denail.

Does every middle Easterner have to blame the USA for everything?

And will Obama talking to a rogue terror state that is building a nuclear bomb to bomb the US have any benefit for the Iranian people? No.

The reason hostages were let go is because Iran knew that while Carter fucked up the rescue, Reagan would not. If the hostages were not let go on Day 1, Reagan would have planned for a massive rescue mission that would have altered Iran's future. Too bad that didn't happen.

The logic here is simply absurd. Blame America not the mullahs that use Islamic law to the detriment of their people.

Iranian Resistance wants more sanctions, as does the very country that gives you refuge and protection. At worst you seem ungrateful.

Cheap ploy to get a Hamas & Iran friendly democrat some publicity.