I’ll set #1 aside assuming many don’t support that under any conditions and almost all the rest would accept it only as a last resort.

Sadly, there are a substantial number of people who prefer military action to any negotiation.

Personally, I am quite certain that at the end of the day Dick Cheney was quite dissatisfied that his hireling would not bomb Iran’s known or suspected weapons sites before their Administration lost the power to do so. And that the 10% of Americans who still give Cheney “Very Favorable” ratings almost no doubt would be wholly supportive of continuing our doctrine of preventative war that Bush started with his invasion of Iraq.

1. Military action
2. Don’t negotiate
3. Negotiate without preconditions
4. Negotiate with preconditions

I’ll set #1 aside assuming many don’t support that under any conditions and almost all the rest would accept it only as a last resort.

Likewise, #2 gets shelved as it can’t accomplish anything.

We’re left with 3 and 4. Now, from here we have the following paths to conclusion.

A. Negotiate without preconditions and Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons.
B. Negotiate without preconditions and Iran develops nuclear weapons.
C. Set preconditions that Iran accepts, negotiate, and they don’t develop nuclear weapons.
D. Set preconditions that Iran accepts, negotiate, and they do develop nuclear weapons.
E. Set preconditions that aren’t accepted, don’t negotiate.

We can drop E as it’s the same as #2 above.

Paths A-D indicate that with or without preconditions, negotiations could fail and Iran could still develop nuclear weapons, but success requires negotiation. This implies that setting preconditions isn’t necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran, but actually negotiating is necessary.

iso

Backroom arms deals with militant mullahs engineered from the White House basement being far preferable.