Hmmm, doesn't sit right. Mate gets him to agree that it was a pretext for the strike, not a legitimate justification, but the way he's talking is way too sympathetic to the US/israeli perspective and gives too much credence to negotiations (which the US has used to string them along) and ignores the very good reason why Iran might be pushing for a nuclear weapon at this point, namely as a deterrent to a US/israel attack. I think I'm going to have to side with Zei Squirrel and others on this (thread below: https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1750033648.html ) - as with North Korea, the only way Iran is going to get US/israel to back off is to develop a credible nuclear threat. Unless they feel they can hold a sword over israel just with the ballistics & drones. I don't agree with Ritter's assertion about it being a 'red line' for the US which would result in a nuclear strike on Iran. Why didn't that happen in NK? Because they were scared of the potential consequences and they believed the NK govt's threats were credible.

Wish it weren't so, and I hate adopting this way of thinking, but I don't see another way out of it for Iran. Tell me why I'm wrong.

cheers,
I