lie on the ground with a paper bag over my head.

and better than many of the others I've heard on this issue! :)

I wouldn't bother with the UN anymore, because they are going to do anything anyway.  Right?  I'll unilaterally call for a complete stoppage of all negotiations and immediately begin a bombing campaign.  Yup, if I put myself in the mind of George W. Bush that's exactly what I think I would be doing.

Now, what do I think should be done now.  As I've said before I believe we went to war with Iraq because Bush misread to Iran.  To his credit he got the first three letters of the country's name right.  Most of the justifications (harboring terrorists, links to Al Qaeda, seeking WMD, threat to neighbors, you get the point) for war in Iraq have been all but proven to exist in Iranian even before the war. 

I think the negotiations have pretty much a run their course, both sides are sticking to terms that neither side will ever agree to. That being said, Considering that oil revenue from export consists of somewhere around 75% of Iran's economy I do believe UN sanctions would quickly shut that nut job up and call his bluff.  Given, we might be paying five dollars a gallon for gas for the next couple of months but we would be able to absorb the extra cost better than Iran would be able to absorb the loss in revenue.  Then if that didn't work I would really consider an air campaign in combination with our allies to take out the nuclear sites (not a strike with nuclear weapons by the way).

We would not be in this situation in quite this way were it not for the Great Decider, who has already decided and so I will not address what I'd do if I were President. That's already settled.

The Cold War was my war, and I base my comments on THAT "long war." We faced an enemy every bit as tough and ready to "bury us," with a leader whose sanity was at times in question, whose finger was daily on the red button ready to unleash intercontinental nuclear missles that we knew for a fact existed and were targetted on our cities. We fought surrogate hot wars and skirmishes around the fringes of each state's national interests (Korea, Vietnam; insurgents in Greece, and so on), but never each other directly; we employed our great tchnical superiority in the Berlin Airlift rather than triggering a hot war by sending our tanks down the autobahn to Berlin. We used Containment not War against the Soviet nuclear threat.

What, I ask, is wrong with containment here? It should have been employed against Iraq (it was working, actually, until G.W. employed Shock and Awe). We have lived successfully with a nuclear Russia, a nuclear China, and now a nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India. Of course, it takes a certain maturity of mind and quality of judgment to bring containment off successfully, and therein lies our problem.

The fact is, Iran's Prime Minister is regarded as crazy by a significant number of his fellow Iranians. The odds are that, unless we give the man a boost by rattling our saber excessively and attacking him, the Iranians themselves will take him out in due course... remember, he was elected--- Iran is a kind of democracy, something Bush chooses to ignore. Iranians are not Arabs; they have  different history. Yes, they are largely Shi-ite, and have been meddling in Iraq--- for several thousand years.

What could be accomlished if we respected them, set up a system of non-aggression pacts in the Middle East, spent some of our war money on reassuring Israel and the others their boundaries were secure, their states were not going to be subject to regime change by anyone, including by Iran or by us? What would happen if we powered an economic recovery or development in the region instead of ruthlessly plundering the area through globalization and the World Bank?

Hey, think about it.

If we attack Iran it will force the Iranian people to rally around an unpopular president in search of homeland security.

I'm trying to think of a recent example of a country who's leader was falling in public support until it is attacked, making the leader's support skyrocket, allowing his regime to push through policy that would never have a chance in a fear free environment to the detriment of the country... hmmmm... uhmmmm... Nope, nothing is coming to mind...

Taking a "long war" approach would be a much better solution.  But, as you did, I would have to question King George's ability to successfully carry out such a strategy. Taking me "long war" approach doesn't have that "see what I did I stop them" effect because most of what happens is in the background and can't exactly be glorified to GW's satisfaction.  Even if he did attempt it, he would probably end up making Iran threaten Israel to the point that Israel would do the bombing for him.

on this--from a recent Fox news analyst appearance.  He recommends diplomacy plus using the UN:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5791

Thanks for the link. General Clark emphasizes diplomacy, talking directly (if perhaps covertly) with the Iranians, using the UN, and lowering the rhetoric so we can reduce Iran's isolation, and then provide security to them and to other neighboring states... in other words, Containment, as practised by American Presidents of both parties during the Cold War. Exactly. I feel better, knowing I am not the only one who thinks like that.

The only way to force our adolescent President to undertake such an adult approach will be for prominent Americans (of both parties) and Congressional leaders to pressure him into it, instead of tamely feeding his ego, displaying jello for a spine. And also elect Jim Webb and other fighting Dems to take away the  Bush personality cult atmosphere sponsored by the Republicans