Subject: Re: Iran - The Difference in Assessment
So it's pretty explicable. No one's been able to rationally articulate why going to war with Iran would improve things sufficiently to justify the massive investment in military resources that it would require.

This is not just "Oh, well, what can we do?" It's one thing to disagree with the foreign policy choices of Obama or Biden - but it's another to dismiss them as folly if you don't have a plausible suggestion for what they should have done instead.

Yes, it is. You oppose what we're doing and you're stating as such. Noted.

You've not said what it is that *you* would do differently other than "not attack". You're just saying that what we're doing is a complete waste of time destined to fail.

I get that. Problem is you're inserting your own logical fallacy (the only person talking about invading Iran is you, modulo the Marines potentially seizing Kharg island).

I'm going to assume you're a supporter of the Obama/Biden policy of

1. Make a deal with Iran where they allegedly stop working on enriching uranium for 10 years
2. Pay them with billions of dollars
3. Don't mention their support for international terror groups
4. Ignore their ballistic missile programs altogether.

Is that correct?