Quote:Wars over in that region haven't accomplished anything. Why not try diplomacy? If it doesn't work, then with the backing of the other negotiating countries, they can decide how to deal with it... Not just the US again.


There are CIA reports that Iran stopped trying when the Iraq search for WMDs started, thinking they may be next. Sure..they may have started up again, but now they have a negotiated deal that the world knows about. Breaking it would not be good.

 

We have tried diplomacy.  This isn't the first time that iran has made a deal with the international community.  The problem that my side has with this accord is that we are at this point, precisely because they have broken every promise they have made in the past.  

 

And you're right.  Iran's behavior was accutely affected by our presence in IRAQ.  That's why the two events are connected.  When there was the threat of an deeper American influence in the region through a free Iraq then there was cause for pause.  That meant that there might be a credible enforcement mechanism for UN sanctions.  That's why it was so important for Iran to dislodge that foothold through funding the insurgency.  

 

Now you have a situation where we left precipitously, essentially surrendering what's left of IRAQ to IRAN, our military is being drawn down, and it

's plainly obvious that this president isn't really interested in a military incursion for the next 18 months.  When you have those conditions it creates a vaccum of leadership.  is it any surprise that the rest of the international community was so quick to make a deal with IRAN.  without the US who is going to stand up to really be the hammer in case things go bad?  I don't see France ready to put boots on the ground, if Iran does violate this agreement it will be with equipment protected by weapons systems they bought from Russia.  That created the weakness that i believe lead to a deal with a foundation of capitulation.  

---