The self-limitations we seem to place upon our own nation make me think war is a more likely ultimate outcome regarding Iran. Let me explain.
Iran wants nuclear weapons, and has wanted them for decades now. They want them to be able to be a regional hegemon so that their brand of Islamic Revolution is more successful, and Iran itself will become more powerful as a result.
We have two choices, ultimately. We can allow Iran to get nuclear weapons (they may get them in any event) or we can refuse, as Susan Powers said at AIPAC, to ever allow Iran to succeed. We say the former is off the table. Iran, we say, can't be allowed to get those kinds of weapons. That means the other choice is really the only choice at all. This puts the USA in direct conflict of a serious national priority of Iran. But we are also saying that war isn't a real possibility with Iran. Maybe it's diplomatic obfuscation, but who knows with the crew running things?
So tonight Rep. Cohen (TN) was being interviewed and he said that sanctions on Iran will have no positive effect. And odd claim for a Democrat to make since it was sanctions Democrats crowed about causing Iran to knuckle under and resume negotiations. I'd like to think Cohen is an outlier among leftists, but I rather think he typifies their thinking on Iran. They would prefer to reject a GOP effort to enact more, or harsher, sanctions on Iran rather than embarrass Mr. Obama. And so they will say things like sanctions don't work just months after saying sanctions worked wonderfully. Things that make you go hmmmm.
But if there is no war potential, and sanctions won't work, and Iran wants nuclear weapons, then what could we possibly give in negotiations to get Iran to give up those nuclear ambitions? Perhaps at this point an honest leftist will see why Netanyahu has little faith in Mr. Obama's negotiating prowess, but as I continue to search in vain for an honest leftist my bet is that no leftist will.
Negotiations require both sides to give, in order to get. The question needs answering: What do we have to give to get Iran to not develop nuclear weapons? Unless and until that question is asked of Mr. Obama, and answered in a fulsome way, then there is no reason to trust Mr. Obama's ability to get a real deal done. He may get a deal, but it will be a deal to Iran's liking, and that isn't a real negotiated agreement at all.
So why should Iran negotiate? Because they will be getting everything they want, to a degree. Including a future with nuclear weapons in their arsenal. But most importantly, they will be getting it with Mr. Obama's imprimatur. And this makes future war more likely, not less.