Many well respected experts do not feel we should make innocent people suffer through sanctions. That isn't to say we shouldn't help when the time is right. Colin Powell has said many times the way to peace for both Iran and N. Korea is to begin talks, find out what they need and make compromises that work for everyone.

Mike S. is very right in his posts. When you get away from talking to the talking heads in Iraq and talk to actual people (this was shown when Amanpour did her special on CNN there) the actual real live people do not feel they are better off now than before the U.S. illegally invaded. They still after all these years lack basic electricity, schools, hospitals etc.

Revolution, to be successful, must ALWAYS be done from within.

As for nuclear weapons and Weapons of Mass destruction (are we STILL looking under rocks for the one's Saddam had??) please, please, please remember the the mighty U.S. is the only nation in the WORLD who has dropped a nuclear bomb on someone, killing and maiming innocents. Nuclear bombs don't just kill, they poison the land. No one in the middle east would honestly do that with the countries being so close. We all know Israel has nukes. Why don't they use them when they so readily attack Gaza? Because it would poison their land too.

Nukes are like watching a fight at the O.K. corral. We are telling the world they can't protect themselves, at the same time we say we can't give up ours because we need to protect ourselves. Any reasonable person would see that is a flawed agruement and no one is going to buy it.

Re: history, I see no relevance of WW I or WW II to the situation the Iranian people are dealing with. The times we have intervened in Iran - e.g., the CIA-led overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh government that led directly to the revolution against the US-installed Shah and the current situation, the harm done by Bush's Axis of Evil speech that I saw first-hand, and many more US actions - have not worked out well. That is the relevant history, not something that happened elsewhere.

As for sanctions, again I see no relevance of past wars to this current situation. The situation in Iraq that you think is not relevant is one useful lesson. The deprivation in Germany after WW I, which played a major part in Hitler's nationalist call to arms and the path to WW II, is another good lesson. The Marshall Plan was meant to avoid this by doing the opposite of sanctions and it worked quite well. The effort to engage Iran - something the hardliners in the government are trying desperately to avoid (you may want to learn more about why; their opinions are also relevant) while the pragmatists are working towards it - is the far better option. This is the inner battle in the Iranian government and the one that has the best chance for us to avoid problems in the future. There is a huge amount of reading from the "experts" on this that you can educate yourself with. An example from history would be Reagan's choice to engage with the USSR rather than exacerbate things.

The nuke issue is not the same as the question of helping the people that we've been talking about. I agree that Iran with nukes is a danger. If you think the two are intertwined then you need to learn more about the complexities of Iran's society and its government.

As I said, there is nothing we can do to help the people of Iran in their fight against their government's repressive policies. Perhaps you can't accept that we can't do anything helpful and you want to go ahead and do something anyway. But as I said, this is about the people of Iran and not about you or me. History teaches us very well what we need to avoid doing. You may be unsatisfied by this - as I am (I remind you that the people fighting daily there are friends of mine) - but to make us feel better about ourselves by doing something that causes more death and suffering in Iran is not an alternative I would consider.

Dealing with nukes is another issue. I will only say that strengthening the hardliners' grip on the government will not help that, and that is what sanctions would do (again, as in Iraq). Engagement, as Reagan did with the USSR, is the better option but we don't have control over the Iranian response. Again, avoiding actions that - once again - exacerbate the situation is most important. Doing so shuts off any reasonable alternatives that might otherwise present themselves. Shutting all the doors now just to feel like we're doing something, without consideration for the consequences, is not an alternative I'd take. For now I think our current policy and the efforts being made in various ways is the best available.

My concern is what is best for them, not what makes us feel better by doing something.

There is little we can do from here, and as frustrating as that might be for you - and even more so for me, I assure you - it's better not to do more harm to them just to make ourselves feel better. This is not about making us feel better that we have done something. It's about them.

It's admirable that we all want to help but sometimes it's just not possible for even the citizens of even the most powerful country on Earth to do something. The time will come but we have done great harm by acting in the past and sometimes, like now, we need to sit on the sidelines and let them deal with it.

The facts about Iraq are a lesson in the effect stronger sanctions would likely have. Sorry you don't see what can be learned from prior mistakes.

As for what would help the hardliners, the sanctions help isolate the country, which is what they do in every way they can. Iraq is the best example of what effect the sanctions can have, and the petty dictators in Iran would love to have the same control Saddam had. We should learn from recent history.

Iran's people are very pro-American and the government takes every opportunity to distance them from us. I was there after Bush's Axis of Evil speech and saw the harm it did to the reform movement and the great anger the people everywhere had against Bush for the statement. It was a good sound byte but it caused the reform leaders to back off and stand with the hardliners against an outside attack. The leaders have fabricated lies about US actions during this latest crisis in the face of Obama's refusal to take the bait and do the same thing again. He gave them no ammunition so they created some anyway (it didn't work with most since the lies were transparent but they do fire up the Basiji).

The US' uncharacteristic response has not helped the hardliners the way it has in the past. I can't educate you on all the things we've done that have hurt the peoples' aspirations before but there is plenty of reading available without my going on and on.

As in medicine, "First, do no harm."

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! ANY SUGGESTIONS?

I have been to Iran many times and seen how our actions affect the people. The average person is hurt although not as much as some might think since, as Lynda says, they can get whatever they really want. The leaders are not hurt in any way at all. Rafsanjani and many other leaders are extremely rich, and the bonyads (foundations) that are supposed to do charitable work are fronts for the richest organizations and individuals. Just as the average person can get any alcohol he wants (but at prices he might not be able to afford), the rich can get anything they want (which they can easily afford).

I was in Iraq during Saddam's time and I can tell you Saddam was doing just fine. He had huge palaces everywhere and anything else he wanted. He was building two of the biggest mosques in the world, easily seen from anywhere in Baghdad. But the people had been sanctioned back to the Stone Age. What was once one of the most advanced cities in the world had unsafe water, raw sewage in the streets, hospitals that I would avoid completely if I was ill. The professors I met with at Baghdad University had not seen a journal or new text book in their fields or traveled to a conference in 11 years. Society was living a slow, difficult death while Saddam did whatever he wanted to.

And 2 of every 3 people in Iraq was dependent on the government (i.e., Saddam) for their food. The sanctions had destroyed their economy so most people couldn't support themselves. That greatly increased Saddam's control over the people.

The hardliners in Iran aren't worried about sanctions. They welcome them. They do their best to be provocative and bring them on. This isolates the people from the outside and lets them decry the western nations as monsters. The brutal leaders welcome sanctions.

Sanctions are not the answer for the 98% of Iranians who hate this regime and want to be free. Stronger international sanctions could turn Iran into Iraq under Saddam, which was far worse. I went from Baghdad to Tehran to visit friends there and being in Iran again was a huge relief compared to being in Iraq.

Trust me, they aren't doing without these things. There is always a black market they can get what they need.

iran is diffrent with middel east countrys..

iranian r diffrent and plz dont compare us with them!!!!

ilove you iran !!

One more thing... why on earth would you think a religious "authority" knows more about God-Allah-The Head Honcho than you do? You can read just like the "authorities" can.