Tensions are on the rise with Iran, the US and Israel so I want to go back and highlight this post on Iran and the neocons and the debate on wat to do with Iran:

Bernard Finel, as quoted by the New Atlanticist Policy blog writes:

[T]he ship has sailed on this. It sailed in 1979, and has been sailing in the same direction for 30 years. If you are relying on convincing the public and decision-makers that Iran is not a threat, you are going to lose the debate. If you are arguing, in effect, that we should just ignore them and rely on deterrence, that is also going to lose the debate.

The reason the neocons won the debate on Iraq was precisely because they were proposing a solution to a widely recognized problem. It may have been the wrong solution, and the problem was not as severe as they claimed. But the reality is that in policy debates, those able to credibly argue for a “winning” strategy to a problem will always have the upper hand over those proposing muddling through or living with risk.

My reply to this is very easy: show me, don’t tell me. That is the only way a leader can get people to muddle through and live with risk: show people that it can be done and this is what has been missing in our Iran policy since 1979. Obviously, for the first several years after the revolution engagement was impossible for both countries domestically. And yes, the neocons have won the rhetorical debate because they have proposed a solution, if that’s what you want to call another war. It’s the hoary old case of defining yourself by standing for something, as opposed to standing against something, which never wins. So, what’s the solution? Leadership. You step up, take a risk and negotiate with the Iranians. Begin by negotiating on interests you have in common—and the US and Iran have interests in common. Don't start the negotiations by arguing what your are going to negotiate. That's the quickest way to failure. Make it very clear to your interlocutor that all issues are on the table. Don't get bogged down in stupid stuff like who is going to sit where. Build confidence. Give the little points away. Show flexibility.

After you’ve built some confidence tackle the harder issues. If necessary take a page from Chou En-lai’s brilliant negotiating strategy with Henry Kissinger: state your differences boldly and clearly in the negotiating document and let the momentum of the relationship moves those issues forward, just as the US and China did in the seventies.

Look, this stuff isn’t rocket science. It's been done before. And be patient. Negotiations take time. Don't sit down once and then leave, as it's been reported the Obama Administration did in the past with Iran. One thing I can guarantee about all this: if we don’t try we’re destined to fail. What’s worse, innocent lives will be lost. Of course, American policy-makers have made a high art of kicking the can down the road and pretending they're making the ‘tough decisions,' as if drifting to war were a hard choice. That's the choice of the insecure, thin-skinned and weak-willed.