Cutting Diplomatic Ties Resolves Nothing: Unconditional diplomacy is best.

"Indeed, any diplomacy that in effect rewards a country without resolving the main issues we have with them would be appeasement." No no, giving the Iranians anything in return for "behaving," for lack of a better term, would amount to appeasement. They shouldn't need to be bribed in order to do the right thing. Your list of "mutually beneficial agreements" is logically valid, but unfortunately rests on some pretty flawed assumptions, making it an unsound argument. First: "Iran and the United States both share a common interest in seeing Iraq stabilized yet not hostile to their interests." This is assumption. Ahmadinejad has made it abundantly clear in several speeches (none of which are ever reported in major media) which indicate that the United States is second on his list of nations which must be destroyed. Israel is the little satan, the United States is the great satan. This doesn't lend much credence to the claim that Iran and the United States both share a common interest in anything, much less Iraq. In fact, Iran is more likely behind what little instability is left in Iraq. "Iran has security, economic, and Shiite interests in Iraq." Could you explain what these interests are? Iran most certainly would not benefit by having yet another rival in the oil export business. The only one of these three interests which might be true is that they represent a common branch of Islam. "An agreement from Iran and the US to both support Iraq's stability aid-wise and to end military operations (US troops and Iranian backed support for militias) would end the USA's security qualms about an Iranian-backed Iraq" This is erroneous. No agreement could possibly assuage our security qualms about an Iranian-backed Iraq. Iran doesn't have a very good track record with regard to its financial and logistic beneficiaries. These beneficiaries can be summed up by one word: terrorists. It could not possibly be in the interest of the United States to see Iranian influence spread, least of all to Iraq. "But to ensure that this program is not manipulated into a weapons program, there are a number of steps that can be taken." There is no fool-proof way to ensure that a country doesn't use an otherwise peaceful nuclear program for nefarious purposes. You clearly underestimate the incompetence of a bureaucracy as large as the United Nations. Do you honestly think it's wise to take such chances with a nation with such clear ties to terrorism all over the world, and with a leader who has been quoted as saying "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," and "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." and other timeless classics? "On a kinda side note, Iran with a nuclear weapon is not necessarily a dangerous thing." You mentioned the Nuclear non-Proliferation Agreement. The whole premise behind this agreement is that for every nation which acquires a nuclear weapon, the world becomes a more dangerous place, ergo, Nuclear NON-PROLIFERATION. Besides, I think it's pretty clear from the previous paragraph that Iran's possession of a nuke would be a very bad thing. Mutually assured destruction obviously worked very well with the Russians, who were NOT religious radicals bent on conquering the world and placing it under the banner of Islam. Something tells me that allowing a man who believes that he is supposed to usher in the apocalypse is not a good thing. "This rhetoric coupled with the real impact of economic sanctions or the real fear of war can be enough to push a population to rally behind their leader." I agree, unless the population in question realizes that it is only the radicalism of their leader which is responsible for the sanctions in the first place. If the world community established sanctions against the U.S. because we began lobbing nukes indiscriminately across the Canadian border, I doubt he would have much success in rallying the American people behind his leadership against the evil nations of the world. "This is Iran, Cuba, N.Korea we are talking about, not America where there are civil liberties." Why should we talk to these oppressive governments? Obviously their aim isn't to further the interests of their people, so why even attempt to cut a deal with them in the first place? You mentioned something very important earlier: trust. Unfortunately, the real world bears very little similarity to that portrayed by Disney. Trust cannot be won simply by talking about it, but by actions. Actions speak louder than words after all. Diplomacy cannot succeed with out the mutual trust that each party will live up to the conditions of the agreement. In the case of Iran, we have no reason whatsoever to confer this amount of trust on them, so what is the point of talking to them? If, however, they agree to our preconditions, this would represent an act of good faith which justifies further talks. Without these "actions" to back up their words, there is simply nothing to say to our enemies. By the way, I noticed that you never answered my question about what you would say to Ahmadinejad if given the chance. Making assertions of mutual interest and possible agreements is one thing, but giving an example of what you would say to bring about such an agreement is quite another.