Quote:So if it were up to you, you'd want your name in the history books as the guy who kicked off World War III because he figured it was probably going to happen anyway?

 

Sounds like a crappy reason to get tens of millions of people killed, far more if it goes nuclear. Real-life diplomacy doesn't work like that. You don't just get to fire cruise missiles at another country because it can't control its citizens and has imprisoned four people (four people), then expect that allies of that nation--particularly Russia--won't respond aggressively. You think that the nuclear accord will lead to a global war? Try backing up a few days and proceeding through door number two, where instead of delivering a signed nuclear deal, the US delivers a few dozen cruise missiles to destroy Iran's military capabilities and take out any suspected nuclear research sites. Iran's allies would strike back hard against US military bases in the region, maybe even Israel, and Russia would have several hundred nukes with "USA! USA! USA!" printed on the side of them ready to go if we so much as fired a cap gun in the Middle East again.

 

Starting a war for the sake of starting a war is not "dealing from strength". It's an elaborate, expensive form of suicide in which you take a couple hundred million people with you.

 

  If the Iranian Government wanted the 4 hostages to be freed,  they would be.   This is a government that has cracked down on its citizens to the nth degree.

 

  The bottom line from my perspective is the dangers are greater if Iran gets nuclear weapons than if the U.S. takes out Iranian's nuclear program.   Iran's # 1 goal is to take down the ' Great Satan'.   They will stop at nothing to achieve this.   If a nuclear attack occurs on U.S. soil,  in addition to the hundreds of thousands to millions of lives lost,   the economy of America will be shattered to pieces.   

---