The description given of Iran could well be applied to the U.S. A vast majority of the people really don't care about fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, but to the executive branch they are center of the universe. The U.S. often likes to speak of its own charity, morality, and humility --- but is often the first to strike militarily, unless it is easier to strike stealthily via actions designed to "undermine" other nations. For every US official who wants 'peace' with Iran there seems to be another who hopes the Iranians will "provoke" us into kicking them in the teeth --- because it needs to be done, regardless of what all those pacifist pinkos think. etc. etc. etc.

I would suggest that Iran poses a dilemma for the U.S. precisely because it raises very real issues about the role of "sovereignty" in our international relations. For a long time the U.S. believed that what other nations did, within their borders and/or to their own people, was their business -- not ours. There were always counterexamples, but the general rule was that we 'recognized' the right of foreign nations to run themselves as they saw fit -- and expected them to treat us the same. We didn't "interfere" in their internal matters, they didn't interfere in ours. On example that comes to mind, Teddy Roosevelt refusing to publicly chide Russia over anti-Jewish pogroms, on the grounds that "internal foibles" were not matters of interstate relations.

As we became a "superpower", however, we began to believe that "sovereignty" was a one-way street. We were free to interfere with other nations -- with speeches, mass media, sanctions, covert actions, etc. but they had dare not interfere with us. We feel absolutely no compuncture about publicly budgeting millions of dollars to "destabilize" Iran, but if Iran took out just one television ad in a major U.S. market criticizing U.S. foreign policy --- actually, we won't let it happen.

The U.S. justified this "one way street" method during the Cold War by simply declaring that communist nations were 'different' and that our intervention in them was for the good, their intervention in ours was for the bad. But Iran is a stickier issue -- it is a democracy. Far from a perfect democracy, perhaps hedging towards totalitarian rule at the moment, but nonetheless with fiercely contested elections (we didn't bother to riot over Bush in Florida -- is that a sign of how 'cowed' Americans are?) and with diverse views held across large populations. Even if we *could* intervene in their political process, *should* we? Well, on one hand we've intervened in the elections of even our 'friends' (money illegally funneled to Australia in the 70s, for example, to swing unions), so why not of our not-so-friends the Iranians?

Let's face it, Obama holding up a picture of 'Neda' is probably going to sell about as well as an Ayatollah holding up a picture of an American without healthcare, or one who has been wrongly executed, etc. etc. Do we really believe that "we" can run Iran better than the Iranians? It is one thing to try and set up some way to deal with whomever their eventual leadership is -- It is quite another to try and intervene to get to pick that leadership in the first place. In the current U.S. system "destabilization" is popular with two very diverse camps of 'interventionists' --- those who are military/realpolitic minded, who see it as an extension of war, and the 'soft/liberal' types who see it as a way to help the downtrodden. As you might expect, when two such diverse camps agree on a general policy (intervention) the end result is usually foreign policy disaster (though the fact that two usually opposed domestic camps agree makes their view very palatable to a U.S. president).

Besides, according to most available polling data and most Iran watchers I've heard, Iran's nuclear power program is extremely popular with the large majority of Iranians. They may love Ayatollahs, they may hate Ayatollahs, but they identify nuclear technology (certainly power, probably weapons) as being a key to being a modern/powerful state. Suppose we elect a true "democratic" Iranian president who does what the people want...... and accelerates their nuclear program? What then?