While unwinding the disastrous foreign policy decisions of the past 50 years is not possible, there is always the choice to start anew with one that doesn't involve intervening in every world affair, meddling in every country's business and causing a tremendous amount of animosity and distrust towards the United States.
I know there are a great many people who feel that Iran is a threat to the United States, especially if they were to become a nuclear power. Of course, we always fail to put ourselves in their shoes, look at U.S. troops across the border and wonder if the only way to keep the U.S. out of our country is to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I'm not saying there isn't anything to be concerned about there, heck we should know, our own CIA helped establish and radicalize some of madrases in the Middle East to forge greater resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. And our problems with Iran go back to the 70s (although the source is the 50s).
We really need to sit back and ask, is it worth endless war and bankrupting our country to meddle with all these little Middle Eastern countries? I've written previously and in more detail on this subject here http://shepard2008.com/issues/iraq-and-foreign-policy/
And although the military spending overseas isn't the biggest budget disaster we face (can you say "entitlements"?) it is one more aspect where a lot of it is unnecessary.
Regardless, for those who think that if Iran wants nuclear weapons so bad we should give them one... Scott Ritter made a chilling case not to.