When one dissects Andrew Sullivan's recent piece in "The Atlantic," only one conclusion is possible:  The man is an idiot and a shill for Obama.

In a nutshell, his argument is that Iran seems more reasonable these days since they have been effective in becoming a regional hegemon.  Also, were Israel or the US to take pre-emptive action against Iran, "Such an act in today's context would immediately pour gasoline on the Islamist fire, uniting Shia and Sunni in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and anti-Western fervor."  This of course is based on Robert Baer's article in the Daily News.

Ok, let me weigh in here, because this is the sort of thinking that starts really BIG wars.

First of all, basing our strategy on what we think someone is going to do, contravenes the basics of US Strategy.  In 1950, the United States National Security Council developed a then classified report called NSC-68.  The basic premise of this 58-page document is that the US must base its defensive strategy NOT on what a potential opponents INTENSIONS are, but rather on what their CAPABILITIES are.

The reason is simple.  In the real-world, we can never really know what our adversaries intentions are.  We may think we know, we may be pretty sure, but we just don't know.  Nor can we ever know.

Now, Mr. Baer is a former CIA Case Officer who was trained in determining what foreign powers intentions are.  This is the sort of intelligence that decision makers need to assist them in developing courses of action.  But they are not policy themselves.

Andrew Sullivan misconstrues Baer's assessment as a policy recommendation.  It is not only wrong, but dangerous.

We must prepare for the world of tomorrow, in which an adversarial Islamist state has both the means and the intent of using a nuclear weapon for the avowed intention of the destruction of the Israeli state.  If, during our efforts we determine that war can be averted, then wonderful.  Those efforts however need to be both diplomatic AND military.  Diplomatic actions, not backed by the threat of violent action, devolve to so much drivel.  Economic sanctions have some net effect in certain circumstances, but are not sufficient alone to dissuade a determined state actor.  In fact, under the circumstances we now face, they will most likely have a negative effect of losing the propaganda battle within Iran, and stiffening popular support of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

We can see how well sanctions have worked against North Korea and Iran over time.

Mr. Sullivan is of the opinion that delicate negotiations are needed, and Obama is the right guy.

“To my mind, the job needs delicacy, calm, authority and patience. Above all: steadiness. The choice seems obvious to me.”

It would seem to me, that is precisely what does not work. Risk averse leaders are a tyrant’s delight. Ronald Reagan was successful in bringing the Soviets to heel, not because he was delicate, calm and patient, but because he called them the evil empire, opposed them at every step, and was prepared to push the button if needed. This is the essence of nuclear brinkmanship. When the Soviet’s embraced Glasnost, that was sufficient to bring us back to the table.

The Iranians are hoping that we will elect Obama, and do not say so because they do not want to jinx their luck. But believe you me, they want another Jimmy Carter. And as Mr. Sullivan said, the choice seems obvious to me. Only this time, we will all be the hostages, and won’t be just 444 days.