Talk of Invading Iran is Crazyspeak

And here are my 2 cents (2.32 US with the exchange rate)

Iran has been run by thugs for over two decades. Its rhetoric has been unconscionable. Above all, its murderous clandestine role as the soul and sugar daddy of terrorism in the region has been nothing short of immoral. If Iraq needed regime change so does Iran.

Iran is many things, but irrational it is not. This not Hussein's Iraq. Walking among the mullahs are pragmatic realists as well. Contrary to some, Tehran does want a stable Iraq. Why wouldn't they? Shia's have a chance to assume real power in a post-Hussein era.

Scholars, politicians, commentators and civilians alike have all been discussing and offering advice about what to do with Iran.

One theory and suggestion is that the United States should invade and attack the Persian pearl. This is crazy talk.

Why in the world would America – already fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq - in its right mind take on a third stage to fight? It would not only be almost impossible to succeed, it could very well further damage its already precarious image around the world. Its terrain and nationalist population would prove to much. Engaging in long, complicated wars in not recommended.

In any event, what would the United States do? Blow the sucker up like Iraq?

No, no. Invading Iran is pure nonsense. There’s a better way and I am sure it’s already been put forward.

First, ever since I could remember Iran has always had a vibrant rebellious student class demanding democracy for their country. The country seems so vulnerable to a true democratic revolution that it’s surprising it has not happened yet.

Second, Iran's economy continues to struggle. People rise up not for ideology but when they can't buy bread. They'll use ideology as a means to allow them access to the bread. Remember this. Iran is using the threat of nuclear armament as a plea to have the U.S. lift sanctions against them. They want a trade-off. They'd be willing to slow down the rhetoric and follow international rules for some cash. Iran is no North Korea on this front.

Iran represents a remarkable opportunity for the United States. Notably, with some skillful leadership, the U.S. can use Iran as a way to mend its negative image in the region. Though of course, given the penchant for the Middle-East to accept conspiracy theories at face value, cynics may begin to fear an American-Shia alliance. Who knows how this would be looked upon by the Sunni’s – already unhappy bunch - in Iraq?

However, America may have no choice but to convince Iran - already internally divided - onto a moderate path. The potentially explosive combination of anti-Israel rhetoric and nuclear bomb aspirations (political ploys notwithstanding) is all the United States needs to make it their business to engage Iran.

And here’s the beauty: all America needs to do is take a position of moral support. Ok, maybe they can supply some CIA poison pills or something but you get the picture - all while keeping Iran intact. True, Iran's judiciary remains in the hands of fanatics as well as other important arms of the government.

Nevertheless, the U.S. need to take the high road on this one. Time for them to clearly define what they expect of Iran and vice-versa. After 9/11, they took the bait to take militarily on Al-Queda. They chose the theater and the battle with Afghanistan and Iraq. With Iran, the situation is different. While the European powers along with Russia have already been in talks with Iran, America should establish its own permanent diplomatic dialogue with Iran – one on one. With a little humility and good old fashioned containment approaches, the U.S. may be able to yield positive results – even with a fanatical government in place. To be fair, the Clinton administrations (as well as Reagan and Bush Sr.) had tried repeatedly to this and was met with hostility.

If you are an optimist, think of it this way: Half the battle is won. The people already are asking for democracy. Iranian leadership seems primed for dissent. It’s a gift for America and the idea that they’d be seen as liberators is legitimate in this instance.

Its educated class are probably already well-read on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Is there a better way to win the “hearts and minds” of a people? Wouldn't it make things easier then for the U.S. to approach the Iranians on mutual security concerns?

For the specific case of Iran, let the Constitution work its magic on its own. It would be a refreshing way to introduce democracy - or some variation of it anyway - in a region that is in desperate need of real change and enlightenment.