Originally Posted by Wonderment
Good point on the incoherence of Robert's position, at least as he stated it here. He might flesh it out by saying he would reluctantly support some sanctions on Iran as a form of appeasement to the Israeli and US hawks who would rather bomb Iran, micromanage regime change and engage in a new round of failed-state fixing.
It's quite funny how the discussion now focuses on how much Iranian sovereignty can be abused to further the goal of stopping the hawks from dismantling it almost entirely.
Also the arguments over why Iran getting the bomb would only further the chance of an Israeli nuclear first strike is a new one on me.
More "farce" than "foreign" policy