Iran, Soviets, and Diplomacy

Let me go on the record: I'm all for having a debate about the threat Iran poses to the U.S.   

It's obvious Iran has an interest in developing a nuclear capability.  While Iran may claim that capability is for energy generation only, it's support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah in Lebanon make an Iran with nuclear weapon technology dangerous.  It's also true that Iran has abetted anti-U.S. forces in Iraq with it's supply of training and munitions. 

Which leads to today's dust-up between John McCain and Barack Obama over negotiating with Iran.  It started with Obama:

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'" (Link)

By now, anyone watching this presidential race play out understands a candidate is required to disagree with everything his opponent says.  Here's John McCain feigning indignation:

"The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny," McCain said.

"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said (Link)

I'm looking forward to the debate where Senator McCain asserts Iran is as great a threat to the U.S. as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War.  Remember the Cold War?  You know...when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles trained on U.S. cities.  When the U.S.S.R. had a massive army and equally massive defense budget.  When the Soviets aided and participated in the funding and training of North Korean and North Vietnamese forces during the Korean and Vietnam war.  When the Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

I'm looking forward to the debate where John McCain is asked if it was a mistake for the U.S. to have negotiated with the Soviets during the Cold War.  And what course he would have chosen instead during that time.

Most sensible people will recognize Senator McCain's rhetoric as just for show.  No sensible person can believe that Iran is even in the same league as the Soviet Union.  That said, the back and forth today is telling about how each candidate views diplomacy as a means of accomplishing change. 

Later in the day, Senator McCain said:

An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran's dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage. (Link)

And Obama:

Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did," he said. (Link)

History holds the answer here.  Despite all the scary stuff that occurred during the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviets talked.  The U.S. and Soviets averted mutual destruction and the U.S. ultimately prevailed.  That sounds an awful lot like we won.

Since 1979, the U.S. has refused to talk with Iran.  Iran is now developing a nuclear capability and has greatly expanded it's influence in the Middle East.  That sounds an awful lot like  we've lost.

So....let's begin the debate.

(And looking at the bright side, this debate is a whole lot better than talking about lapel pins).