You do know that the United States, under John F. Kennedy, had secretly placed missiles in Turkey that were pointed at the USSR? Far from perceived weakness, the Soviet Union was responding to an act of hostility.
Sure did know about the missiles in Turkey. They were not very accurate and of marginal value. Many may not know as part of the Cuban "deal" they were removed.
Here's one source, that I base my statement on, but there are many examples (source) and it is considered common knowledge.
"Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev viewed America's failure at the Bay of Pigs as a sign of Kennedy's weakness and inexperience, an assessment he felt was confined after meeting Kennedy at the Vienna Summit of April 1962, where it appeared to some that Kennedy was sandbagged by Khrushchev's threat to cut off West Berlin from the Western powers. Within six months, Khrushchev was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, an action that brought the world as close as it has ever come to all-out nuclear war."
Tonight there is an excellent program about the "Cuban Missile Crisis" on the History channel. Check it out if you get a chance.
The difference between the Soviet Union and Iran IMO is that there have always been both high and low level discussions on a wide variety of issues with the Soviets. Low level talks are really the glue that keeps the high level talks going, even if they should break down. Depending on who you talk to, American or Soviet, thats who won the stand off. The Soviets could claim they got the missiles out of Turkey and we could claim the same for Cuba. A win - win for everyone.
Now I'm not saying we should never talk to the Iranians, but it needs to start on the lowest and most basic levels, perhaps agricultural or health issues. Remember they expelled our diplomats (after a despicable 444 day hostage situation). This was unprecedented among civilized nations. I would say trust should be earned and not freely given. The same people that were involved during the 1979 crisis are the same that are in power today. I also don't think the anti-American propaganda plastered on buildings, billboards and, streets, all with government support, is a very good start, along with the recent rhetoric either. Do you?
But a unconditional (even a conditional visit at this point) presidential visit? IMO that is out of the question for the foreseeable future. That would only legitimize the leadership that wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, by giving them the diplomatic upper-hand, not to mention distressing Israel, an important ally. That president might as well don a dog collar and leash, than hand it to Ahmadinejad for the photo op. I think we all got a big taste of what a talk would be like between Ahmadinejad and the president, from the recent UN gathering. Larry I'm actually surprised you would support this. Libya has for the most part changed course (they are pretty quiet about middle east issues), and it didn't take a presidential visit to accomplish this, nor does it merit one in the foreseeable future. It took many years, but it started with Libya wanting to rejoin the rest world. Iran needs to do the same. You can love your enemies if you like, just don't be surprised if they club your head while your kissing their feet.