Sunday schadenfreude- of the primary sort

Part II

To appease, or not to appease? As has been pointed out by plenty of people with brains, memory, and a
basic knowledge of 20th century history, appeasement and dialogue are not synonomous. Not even a little tiny bit.
So it should go without saying, but just in case my republican friends are still unclear on the concept:

All of which begs the question: in regards to the current Middle East and Iranian crises, what would Reagan do (WWRD)?

Aides to and biographers of the nation's 40th president universally note that he had a preference for one-on-one engagement. And in describing the foreign policy of their former boss (or subject) they employ language that reflects, almost point by point, much of the rhetoric coming from the Obama campaign.

In fact, I'll go even further: the next line of the article:

But when asked if he would, if he were alive and in the Oval Office today, meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the bag is mixed.

"I think the same strategy would apply to Iran as currently applies to say North Korea. Reagan would always indicate a willingness to talk but you'd have to have an indication of sincerity on the other party," said Richard V. Allen, Reagan's National Security Adviser. "Reagan would not negotiate with an Iran that had been implicated in the killing of servicemen in Iraq. He would want that stopped and he would use it as a means of getting a negotiation."

Which sounds good until you remember that Reagan's administration secretly sold weapons to Iran after the hostage crisis and while Iran was at war with our then ally, Saddam Hussein.

So, yes, I think Reagan would have talked with Iran. Like Kennedy talked with Kruschev, like Isreal's talking to Syria. He might have even talked to the head of the government, Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI, instead of endlessly fretting over the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad.