A no-win situation

Submitted by Allen (Canada), Jul 14, 2015 at 13:46

We are certainly in a no-win situation. It is a given that the Iranian theocrats want the bomb at any cost. It is also a given that Israel, and maybe the next leader of the USA, cannot allow them to have it. Negotiations or an attack are simply delay mechanisms in the hope that regime change will occur in a future time, a time when maybe the Iranian leaders will not want to have the bomb (and destroy Israel). The advantage of allowing Obama, the most pro-Iranian president and weakest and most incompetent negotiator ever (reduced sanctions BEFORE the talks and traded the deserter Bergdahl for 4 Taliban leaders) negotiate a deal with Iran is that we can say we exhausted all diplomatic possibilities and even allowed the shrewd Iranians to take full advantage of the negotiations.

Now, with a bad deal at hand and Iran marching towards being a nuclear power America or Israel (and France) will inevitably resort to bombing their facilities. The disadvantage of having Obama negotiate for us is that we will not have put our best strong foot forward. Either way bombing them seems inevitable.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".