Thusly assessed, I would ask if taking the military option off the table as a pre-condition is equivalent to asking Iran to give up a weapons program as a pre-condition.
Or am I assessing in an unbalanced manner?

(If you doubt my seriousness, see the link I left on your FDL post)

Appreciate the spirit of your post, but I wish you actually took a position with respect to how so many see the man. He is in fact a creative and nuanced analyst of U.S. foreign policy and world affairs. More to his credit, he continues to offer valuable analysis, seemingly oblivious to the vicious and unfounded attacks he receives on a nearly daily basis.

Walt makes good sense (more than Ross).

But Obama/Clinton/Ross don’t have real freedom to craft this policy.

Here’s a link to a a href=”http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/how-to-talk-about-israel.php”> National Journal blog article with question, and some responses from people who seem to be worth respecting. The question relates to Israel/Palestine, but Israel relations are also at the core of the US/Iran relationship (a real concern considering Dennis Ross’s previous and current positions).

Andrew Sullivan, while linking to the article above, says that the answers to the questions may surprise the reader.

I have never understood the deep paranoia in Israel regarding the possibility/probability of Iran getting some small number of nuclear weapons. Does Israel believe that the US will not put Israel under the protective umbrella of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) if Iran attacks Israel with a nuke? How does Israel’s reputed 100+ nukes relate to Iran as deterrents, and why would a pre-emptive attack ever make sense for Israel when surrounded by Arab countries? Would not an Iranian nuke attack lead to millions of Arabs being killed (by fellow Iranian Moslems, but who are not Arabs?

Isreael also seems very vulnerable politically since it is not a signatory to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation pact (NPT), and Iran is a signatory and allows inspections by UN inspectors.

Something doesn’t make sense in all this.

As to the point by macaquerman on pre-conditions: Bush made a pre-condition to talking a committment to Iran to stop ALL nuclear activity, including that peaceful activity allowed by the NPT. Since all options are always on the table for all diplomatic/military activity between contending partners, why would anyone expect that an opponent would concede in advance their negotiating leverage? Perhaps I misunderstand the point, but no pre-conditions for either side to resume diplomacy seems like a normal start to any face to face negotiation for reconciliation, peace, or whatever. The Bush pre-condition should be taken off the agenda. Nothing is lost by doing so.

Maybe Iran doesn’t want a reconciliation with the US (or even less likely, with Israel until the Israel/Palestine issue is being resolved by agreement of all parties). Maybe, given their strategic position surrounded by US forces in both the east and west, and potential rivals in India or Pakistan leads them to believe they must have a nuke weapon. Or maybe they really fear the Saddam treatment and see the success of N. Korea in avoiding invasion/overthrow. Who knows?

Shouldn’t we find out in carefully calibrated talks to explore the real intent of Iran?

I’m not ready to see the US led into yet another totally counterproductive and wasteful war because some people want to accentuate dangers that may not exist or can be deterred. I’m equally angry at those who minimize the possibilties for reaching an agreement in an attempt to prevent trying.