There’s another way to look at it. The first key fact is that iran is actually pursuing a nuclear capability. This has to be understood. They aren’t building ballistic missiles to carry dynamite.

They don’t want nuclear energy; it’s more expensive to them than natural-gas fired electricity would be.

They don’t need a whole arsenal worth of enriched uranium for medical isotopes.

Now, is the deal under discussion going to have any other result, down the road, than a nuclear-armed Iran? What’s going to happen that will sway them from their course, under that deal? Inspections may slow it down, I suppose.

Churchill made the point that the choice at Munich had not been between war and peace, but between war at better odds and war at worse odds.

Here, the choice needn’t be between war sooner and war later, because it could be that sanctions would sway the regime and convince it to stand down its nuclear arsenal ambitions. But not if we give away the store.

If I wanted to adopt the same rhetorical style that seems to be the fashion, I could say that the Democrats don’t just want war, they want nuclear war.

Because that’s one possibility if they’ve miscalculated.

But I know better than to fling such a hateful and unfounded accusation. They think their deal will work. Are you sure?