U.S. better make nice with Iran, because,

[babylonsister]

according to Eleanor Clift, Newsweek, on McLaughlin Group tonight, we will be needing to buy electricity from Iran to support Iraq since we've broken it (their power grid) with this bullshit war. :wtf:
Apologists: Blankley and Buchanan, both in denial.

[oblivious]

1. The US better make nice with the world cos friends are better than enemies

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. too late!

:nuke: In fact, the chicken-hawks have no stomach for Iran type fighting and might decide to put troops in Pakistan. That's another Republican failure: THE TALIBAN LIVES!

[tocqueville]

2. here is why the US should be nice with Iran

Sanctions have proved ineffective time and again and are not likely to obtain a different outcome in the case of Iran. Faced with shortages and economic privations, the Iranian populace will blame the West and cluster more closely around the current regime.

Sanctions are also unlikely because they would cut off Iranian oil. China would never tolerate this because of its dependency on Iranian oil, and the US economy could not bear the increase in the cost of oil. Iraq also taught us that sanctions could also serve as a fertile breeding ground for corruption and allow the government further leverage in exercising its power. Also, the US cannot leverage Iranian access to America's vast economy because it has already been closed to Iran for 27 years.

Military strikes would be a godsend for the regime in Iran, especially the hardliners that the United States most fears. Targeted strikes on several key installations might indeed disrupt the nuclear program, but again these would generate immense consequences for the US and its allies. Military strikes would create ill-will from ordinary Iranians and extend indefinitely the lifetime of the regime. Such strikes also would not be enough to topple the regime and no government now has the manpower or will for such an occupation.

To the degree that military strikes would be successful and would manage to destabilize the regime, US foreign policy would be faced with a vortex of anarchy stretching from Islamabad to Damascus. The internal chaos in Iran in the early 1980s showed how deep and virulent Iran's ideological divisions can be. All of these divisions could be strengthened or influenced by elements outside of Iran were the regime to collapse. This, coupled with the potential for ethnic unrest from the almost 50% of Iran that is not Persian, could lead the country into a long civil war. Furthermore, even if a stable regime were to emerge, there is no guarantee that it would be a more responsible international citizen.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC18Ak04.html

in other words : you hated Iraq ? you ain't seen Iran yet...

[Old and In the Way]

5. Pretty sobering assessment.

Given the braintrust that is running this country, will they consider this? Everything they deal with is completely botched. I read their PNAC plan and it was so obvious that they are totally delusional in their thinking. They really think we can waltz into every Middle Eastern country, pacify it with a little shock-and-awe, and expect an immediate cultural conversion to Republican values. They want the oil, but they seem to think no one else understands this underlying motivation.

If Iraq was a disaster for the New American Century, a war with Iran will end it.

[dweller]

4. one word.

Bourse.

dp