Americans who remember the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, in which a group of Iranian students took over the American embassy and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days, can’t help but dislike the theocratic regime still in place in Iran. Democratic or Republican, all four of the most recent U.S. administrations pursued a policy of having no diplomatic presence in Iran. This policy has been in place for almost 30 years.

Today we know that Iran is developing its own nuclear program. Remembering 1979, we feel uneasy about this whole Iran-becoming-a-nuclear-power thing. We don’t know exactly why we are scared: combining nuclear weapons and Iran in one sentence just doesn’t sound good.

This blind fear, fueled by our current administration’s calls to disengage Iran from the world by any means possible, is inexcusable. With our eyes closed, we refuse to consider the possibility that our perception of the Iranian threat is not matched by the reality of this threat. The truth is, we know very little about the country. Perhaps if we knew more, we would see that it is irrational of us to be afraid of Iran, and it is rational of them to be afraid of the United States.

With an alarming proximity to five nuclear powers (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel), Iran is located in one of the most volatile regions of the world. It doesn’t exactly fit into this volatile region either, given the historic tensions between Persia and the Arab countries, including an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq.

Now, in addition to this already uncomfortable geopolitical situation, Iraq is currently occupied by the United States, the world’s strongest military and nuclear power. Another neighbor of Iran, Afghanistan, is occupied by NATO, the world’s strongest military alliance.

All these international tensions could have been relieved if Iran was a strong, wealthy, and consolidated state. Its internal health, however, just like its international standing, is not stable. Despite increased revenue due to skyrocketing oil prices, economic hardships persist: 40 percent of the Iranian population lives below the poverty level; inflation and unemployment are in double-digits. President Ahmadi-Nejad’s inability to improve the economic situation in Iran makes him increasingly unpopular. His overblown and often bombastic rhetoric towards the United States and Israel does not sit well even with Ayatollah Khamenei, the true leader of Iran. Political opposition to Ahmadi-Nejad is gaining strength, with some speculating that he will face tough challenges in his re-election bid next year.

In such a turbulent international and domestic environment, the development of a nuclear program for peaceful and military purposes is this regime’s best bet for its political survival. It works well with the domestic audience because international opposition to Iran’s right to develop its own nuclear program fuels nationalist feelings among the Iranian population. It also helps with Iran’s international standing since, as Fareed Zakaria, a prominent international relations scholar, put it, “in the world of international politics, a nuclear program is the ultimate insurance policy.”

Don’t agree with Zakaria? Look at India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. All four of these countries have nuclear weapons programs; all four of them acquired these weapons illegally. When the world, the United States included, had to face the reality of these countries being nuclear powers, serious consequences did not follow. In fact, quite the opposite happened: Israel, which till this day does not admit to having a nuclear weapons program, is one of the United States’ closest allies; India is on the verge of signing a nuclear agreement with the United States; Pakistan, despite violations of democratic principles by President Musharraf and despite Al-Qaeda’s haven formed on the Pakistan-Afghan border, enjoys unprecedented support of the U.S. government; North Korea has been paid to get rid of its nuclear weapons and is no longer considered, by the United States, a part of an Axis of Evil. It seems clear that wonderful things happen to countries after they establish their nuclear programs. Is it not a wise choice for Iran to proceed with enrichment of uranium and face the consequences after its weapon is developed? Given the precedents, these consequences are certainly better than the ones Iran is facing now. The bottom line is that incentives for Iran to continue with its nuclear program are far greater than disincentives.

Realizing that Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear power, however, should not make us afraid. Before it is too late, we need to make sure that our government, and whoever is in charge of it, starts serious negotiations with Iran. Instead of putting Iran on the same level with Hitler and threatening the coming of World War III, our government needs to make a break with the failed 30-year policy of calling Iran irrational and refusing to negotiate. Perhaps it’s time to try something new. After all, we are currently in negotiations with Kim Jong Il, a much more belligerent and irrational dictator (Khamenei did not starve two million of his people) of an expansionist country (North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950; the Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded another country), and we were able to persuade him to drop an already established nuclear program.

The best way to convince our leaders to abandon their failed policies towards Iran is to stop our own hysteria over Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. According to the February Gallup poll, 25 percent of Americans consider Iran the U.S.’s greatest enemy. Only 9 percent of Americans, according to the same poll, think that North Korea is our biggest foe, even though it is North Korea that has nuclear weapons, and not Iran. It is time to stop allowing our irrational fears to dictate our policies. We need to let go of our embedded dislike of the regime and be adults here. Direct talks are necessary and the United States, unlike Iran, has no excuse for being afraid to negotiate.