Containing Iran

Obama seems to think that talking to our enemies seems to be the right thing to do. This former member of the Reagan administration doesn't think so.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2008/04/14/tyrannys_enabler

So if Obama does become President, and ends up talking to Iran, what will this accomplish? Maybe at best reduced tensions in Iraq. I remember when Pelosi went to Syria last year, nothing really happened. The same will probably occur if Obama goes to visit Iran next year. However, the big question remains what the hell to do with Iran. Iran, a Shiite nation (10% shiite population in the Mideast), is slowly taking control of the Mideast. These guys want to get a nuke, and this will lead to an arms race in the Mideast. Just imagine if maniac Islamic fascists get control of the nukes. So what's the best way to handle this. Isolate Iran. Companies have to start disinvesting their assets in Iran, and force Iran to change policy. The UN is placing sanctions on Iran, and soon if countries stop doing business with these fanatics, Iran will become bankrupt. Soon, they'll be forced to change for the good, and liberate their people. In the 1980's, the U.S. did the same thing with South Africa (they supported apartheid back then), and a few years later, South Africa changed its apartheid policy (since it was economically distressed following this course of action). Reagan did a similar thing to beat the Soviets in the 80's. By outspending the Bolsheviks in military spending (the SIDS, the Star Wars iniative), Russia was bankrupt, and the Cold War was over. Following this course of action will allow a pro-American (most Iranians are younger than 30 & view America positively) regime change within Iran. The economy of Iran is horrid (15% unemployment) for the simple fact of only depending on oil, and not following a free market economy. Too bad Obama won't follow this course of action.