Remember when Obama actually broadcast a message of respect to the Iranian people and communicated a desire to re-open diplomatic relations with their country and its government despite a mutual history of conflict and ill will that had built up between our two nations ever since the CIA helped overthrow Iran's legitimate government in the 1950's and install the Shah as a dictator? Predictably, the neoconservatives proclaimed that Obama's speech was a sign of weakness, appeasement and capitulation to the greatest Islamofascist threat in the world. That our President was as naive as Neville Chamberlain and his efforts at rapprochement were doomed to failure, and a hard line against Iran must be re-imposed. That he was Jimmy Carter redux, but this time in blackface. Why they even claimed Obama's speech showed he wasn't "manly" enough to deal with the hardliners in Iran, and that he would sell out American security if he went through with his diplomatic initiatives, even if that meant turning the US of A into the Muslim States of America.

Well, hold on to your hats, because if one simple speech elicited that sort of reaction, imagine the whirlwind of blithering vitriol and craptacular rhetoric from the neocon deadenders which this news story is likely to set off:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Thursday it would attend a U.N. conference on the future of Afghanistan which was proposed by Tehran's old foe the United States. [...]

News of Iran's attendance is likely to be welcomed by the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, who has offered a "new beginning" of diplomatic engagement on a range of issues with the Islamic Republic.

In an overture toward Tehran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this month Tehran would be invited to the conference to discuss Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long border.[...]

"We believe that a regional solution should be found for the Afghanistan crisis," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted [Iran's Foreign Minister] Mottaki as saying during a visit to Brazil.

"Iran's goal in the region is to help peace, stability and calm which is necessary for the region's progress," he said. [...]

Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties for three decades and are now embroiled in a dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs. Iran says it is for peaceful power purposes.

But the two foes share an interest in ensuring a stable Afghanistan, analysts say.

Poor neocons. The end truly is nigh. The end of unilateralism by the US in dealing with the world. The end of the Bushco foreign policy of "shoot first and worry about the collateral damage later." The end of thinking American military might can solve all our problems if we just have a strong enough will to "stay the course" in the greater war against the evil doers in Iraqafganipakisaudijihadistan.

Pity the fools, I say. It has to be difficult seeing all your dreams of endless wars and crusades going up in the thin smoke of reality. For the reality is that we cannot win a "War on Terror" and we never could. And we certainly couldn't do it alone, though God knows Bush tried (and yes, a million people died). Now the sane people we elected last Fall have to clean up the mess that resulted from eight years of allowing sociopaths complete domination and control of our government.

It's a good sign that Iran is responding to Obama's overtures and agreeing to participate in this conference regarding the security of its neighbor, Afghanistan. After all, the Iranians want a stable and de-radicalized Afghanistan as much, if not more, than we do. I don't want to make too much of it, but it is a good first step. We should ignore the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of Iran's leaders. It is their actions that matter most. This action tells me that they are open to engaging the United States diplomatically. It won't be easy. There will doubtless be missteps, disagreements, and mistrust along the way. But it beats the alternative.

To quote that famous conservative icon, defiant war leader, and "defender of western civilization" of whom the right is so fond, Winston Churchill:

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

He said that (or something similar) on June 26, 1954 at the White House, during the height of the cold war, when fear of Communist states like the Soviet Union which actually had nuclear weapons (those infamous weapons of mass destruction you've heard about) and large military forces that threatened our national security and the national security of our allies, ran rampant in our country and folks like Joseph McCarthy and General Curtis LeMay were the leaders of the "Let's get them before they get us first" war party. If those words made sense back then, how much more do they make sense now?