Honestly, I am not precisely sure what to do with Iran. They are crazy, and crazy folks shouldn’t get to play with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, I don’t see us as being able to project credible threats of force there. To undertake a ground war would require the draft, and there is not sufficient popular support for that, or else air campaigns that would accomplish little but temporary setbacks.

Given that, I think we must negotiate, even knowing that they may be trying to pull a fast one. It seems the best move we can make.

…because the last one is doing great things for him?

And as for John Bolton, I’d prefer to go with what he actually said rather than the Post’s suspect paraphrasing of his words:

“”We don’t have anything to say to Iran until they give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons,” said John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. “Iranians are always interested in talking right before everyone puts the squeeze on them….

“I don’t know what offer they would want to make, but it wouldn’t be surprising. It would fit the paradigm of their activity before and then once the squeeze lets up a little bit, back they go to enrichment, back they go to perfecting their conversion technology, back they go to the pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Bolton said.

Nothing very arguable (or defeatist) there…As UN ambassador, Mr. Bolton is well aware that Russia and China are not wholly with the US, France (France!!) and GB on this…any negotiations by the US as the US will be by Secretary Rice, not John Bolton and you’ve read her comments.

We’ve made a starting point – no uranium enrichment – no nuclear weapons; not a lot of wiggle room there, esp. if you’re Israel and the guy is making promises it increasingly looks like he can make.

…at any rate, welcome back from your hiatus.