Petraeus works to halt foreign fighters.
We've been in a proxy war with Iran since the late 70's. Afghanistan. So the argument that they are only taking defensive measures is lacking.
We're going to disagree here too. I would argue that our foreign policy regarding Iran needs to change. Obviously this proxy war hasn't done much of anybody any good--explain to me outside of funding terrorists--which several nation-states are guilty of, and the nuclear threat--really, what real threat does Iran pose?
The current policy in the Middle East is broken and flawed. All it's created is culture based on hate and Anti-western sentiment which has manifested itself in terrorism. We can choose to continue pursuing the same broken policies of unconditional support of Isreal, continued meddling, nation building and diplomatic antagonism hasn't worked.
Iran has no army capable of a sustainable offense. Iran has no navy save for a bunch of converted speedboats with some anti-aircraft guns. Save for pursuing a nuclear program, which I agree is disturbing and certainly a real threat, I would argue a more antagonistic policy will push Iran further to develop a nuclear weapon.
The same PNAC supporters are the ones clamoring for a "harder" policy to confront Iran; the same ones who argued that Iraq was such a threat are saying the
same thing about Iran. Enough is enough. This country is BROKE and overextended militarily. Not only would inciting a war with Iran be foolish, it makes no sense to me that the United STates can broker a deal with North Korea regarding nukes, but Iran is a no-go.
BA is exactly right about the historical events in 1953. The overthrow of a democratically-elected leader was done in the name of business rather than national interests. And some wonder why foreign relations with Iran and west, for that matter are bad.