afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.