Alternative to Negotiating with Iran?

The path to peace isn't going to be easy or quick with Iran.  The US and Iran share distrust and dislike in many respects.  So, a little formal analsysis of the situation is in order.  First, We should consider what the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (i.e. BATNA - for how this analysis works I recommend the book Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury).  As I see it, the best alternative is to continue to apply a rigid regime of sanctions on Iran to possibly compel them to cease alleged weapons grade erichment.

The sanctions regime is a good option from the perspective of being a non-violent confrontation.  It offers a potnential end to a long-standing crisis without war.  In turn, the success of sanctions could yield an atmosphere where dialogue could be conducted and relationships created, post crisis.

The negative aspects of a sanctions regime, are numerous.  First, Iran may be able to push past the sanctions and create nuclear weaponry, if we assume that is their intent.  Second, it is a continuation of a long standing face-off between Iran and the US.  For the sake of simplicity, I will ignore the many other players in this issue for now.  It allows a status quo to continue in the Middle East, which serves no one's interests.  Third, the sanctions will end sooner or later, and they merely create a holding pattern until the parties come to the point of agression, or a satisfactory conclusion.  That elusice satifactory conclusion can only come from actions taken by Iran, confirmed and accepted by the US, and allies, and concluded with a negotiated settlement.  So, sanctions are merely a deferral of a negotiated agreement, or a collapse into war.  To avoid war, we must eventually talk with the Iranians.

So, is the real 'best alternative' to negotiation war?  Perhaps. And perhaps it affords us the opportunity to conduct limited warfare.
If a full scale infntry-led war with Iran sounds like a nightmare, perhaps we can engage in tactice we used against Iraq between the Gulf War and the 2003 'shock-and-awe' invasion.  We supressed their military capabilities by force by placing a no-fly zone in place, and tightening a sanctions noose around them.  It was ultimately a failure, when the US 'confirmed' WMD's in Iraq, while at the same time sanctions collapsed.  The US invoked "The Bush Doctrine" and launched a preemtive attack to prevent deployment of the WMD's.  Limited war failed.

Since we have already started a punishing sanctions regime on Iran, it seems unwise to stop those sanctions until we receive some sort of response from Iran.  Nonetheless, we MUST be willing to listen to Iran, and sieze the opportunity to talk.  A surgical strike of a supposed nuclear weapons deveopment site will not in any way I can forsee, stop at a surgical strike, nor is it likely to satisfy skeptics that Iran is no longer capable of nuclear deployment.  Such a move is a prelude to a nightmare war.

In the end, there is no acceptable substitute for negotiated agreement with Iran.

Now it gets quite tricky.  First, what are the parameters to be negotiated, Second, who is present to conduct negotiations, and third, what are the conditions under which negotations are started, and continued.  I'll save the negotiation parameters until the next time.  Meanwhile, I hope you find personal peace, and continue to commit to being a peacemaker.