Maybe not Obama's take in the rise of ISIS but...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If they really want the bomb, they are not going to negotiate away their ability to get it. Perpetual negotiations, interspersed with agreements which will ultimately be circumvented, allows the eventual getting of the bomb.

And strict oversight with an empowered IAEA would likely prevent it. We'll on what their leadership is willing to pony up to. If they agree to have their uranium converted to medical use as is being discussed you'd think maybe they aren't that eager.

So, getting back to your wanting a discussion of an alternative approach to negotiations, what would that be in your opinion? You say there is no difference between force and negotiation, so what is the alternative approach?

If the point is to prohibit a bomb, and both methods are successful perhaps you should choose the more constructive means.

Could it be, rather than merely destroying their capabillity (temporarily as you say), the alternative approach would be to permanently destroy them. If you look at it through their eyes instead of yours, you might see that the confrontation is what they ultimately want. And their objective is to destroy you. And getting the bomb would surely aid them in that objective.

Who's them? The mullahs? The Iranian people? The Republican Guard?

Seems like the military really has the power and I'd wager their interest is staying in power. If they get an open confrontation with the West they'll lose that power. The Iranian people appear to have a very positive view of Americans. Perhaps that's who Obama was speaking to when you thought he was talking to himself.