(To spoil the ending: um, no.)
Among the neo-conservative nutball set, however, the answer is generally a resounding "yes," which is why, no matter the decade or the circumstances, the only correct answer is always to preemtively invade everyone in sight. For the past few months, they've been engaged in some particularly silly hysterics (silly until they start another war, anyway) over the fact that President Obama would *gasp* conduct diplomacy with Iran. When it was gently pointed out to them that conservative "heroes" such as Nixon and Reagan were perfectly willing to engage with their Soviet counterparts, some responded with the rather singular argument that that was different because Iran is WAY more dangerous than the USSR ever was.
The mind boggles. After all, essentially every resident of the first world between my age and the age of my parents had to grow up taking it for granted that we could all be vaporized on a moment's notice. The age of the ICBM arms race meant that I, living over ten thousand miles from any Soviet territory, grew up having fucking nightmares about fallout! (Pardon the vulgarity, but I'm sparing you the billion-point blinking neon font that would be required to adequately convey the magnitude of my incredulity that anybody actually thinks this.)
For a snarkier take on this, I recommend Attaturk's post on the subject, in which he attempts to soberly compare the two adversaries. E.g.:
9. Allies: The Soviets had a "bloc" comprising half of Europe through the Warsaw Pact [coincidentally comprised of nations they occupied, funny that], the Iranians were tossed in with North Korean and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil" [much to the surprise of Iraq & Iran , see #5 above] because Bush learned his history from Dixie Cup sayings.
10. Movies: "Red Dawn" much cheesier than "Not Without My Daughter"