Since the Iran deal has been made public, Obama, and just about all who support it, claim that it's this deal or war. I would say I generally agree, but perhaps this isn't entirely fair. Near as I can tell, conservatives or "hard liners" within the US and Israel have drawn a line in the sand. This line is that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and arguably, Iran will not even be allowed to have nuclear power. If Iran persists, I think it is fair to say this group has made it clear that Iran needs to be struck militarily to prevent advancement of a nuclear program. We may quibble about what other methods may be on the table, and whether they may work, but I don't think my presentation of the end goal is inaccurate. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have to admit, that while I firmly believe there are more than a few war hawks who are ready right this minute to attempt surgical strikes into Iran, there are probably a lot who do not want this as a first and only solution and it is probably not fair to portray it that way. That said, I also feel like the response is a bit of a whine from the right to keep claiming it is so unfair to portray them as war mongers when they really aren't offering anything in response. Similarly, Republicans have spent several years now bitching about Obamacare without offering any sort of comprehensive response that could actually be used to "repeal and replace" it. It seems to me that sanctions HAVE brought pain to Iran that is pushing them in a direction we want them to go. Of course, this will be openly disputed because they still chant death to America and Israel.
Time to spray your computer screens with coffee and laugh with cynical histrionics (can we start a pool on how many responses start cleverly with LMFAO) : Obama, to me, is doing what most presidents before him have done, he is trying to offer leadership. In true negotiations, nobody gets 100% of what they want. If they do, it is not a negotiation and instead signals a capitulation by the other side who was forced into it one way or another. I'll concede that perhaps not everyone right of center actually wants war. That said, at this moment, I feel that the right of center position is that Iran will not have nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Period. Without seeing any plan from the right that seems to have some world cooperation to help make it stick, I don't see anything we are going to do that is going to accomplish a goal of no nukes whatsoever for Iran that does not include physically forcing them into capitulation. What is the right of center plan and if my portrayal of the goal is wrong, what is the goal?
In advance, rhetorically asking why Iran needs nuclear power when they have so much oil is not, IMO, a response. I'll hang up and listen to your answers.