This is a very confusing question. You say that John McCain says something he does not in fact say. The question asks about something called 'diplomatic outreach', while at the same time talking about protests against the Iranian government - when in fact it is only part of the Iranian government.
McCain, in his answer, refuses to clear up any of those issues and says some flowery stuff that means nothing but yet connotes danger by bringing up issues like Nuclear weapons.
On top of this, you ask me if 'I agree with McCain', even though what he said is simply news pablum. "Our issues of nuclear weapons is important" Really? I would never have guessed. But what about 'reiterating in as strong as terms as possible' - what does that mean?
I think the best thing is to speak conditionally, and realize and recount our tepid history in the region. Otherwise, we lack all credibility. I would say, although in the past our nation has tried to rule the direction of Iran, we do so no longer. And if I can tell Rejiminad is that he has no longer anything to fear from the United States, as we have given Iraq back to the Iraqi people, and have a timetable for withdrawal all troops by the end of 20011. We hope our nations can continue to trade and cooperate in peace and be respectful to the will of our people, who have fought for freedom and ability to govern ourselves.
If anything, it is exactly the kind of thing that McCain is doing which would come across so negatively in Iraq. If anything, McCain should embrace Rejiminand, and thus the people reject them both together.