Control on the inevitable" only works when the other party has a track record of trust.
Surely by now you must accept that (in this day and age) we are operating from a different set of rules and therefore, how can we negotiate on such matters as Atomic capabilities with parties that see life (and death) completely differently?
Given the current heightened state of affairs in the Middle East, particularly Iran's deceitful hand in supporting much of the major disruption in the region and given the fact that in the end, a religious fanatic must sign the agreement, I would have thought that other tough approaches might be more suitable...
...Iran must be laughing at the Obama pussyfooting, trusting approach - which I believe is responsible for the heightened problems in the region.
Its like a choker collar or muzzle - certain dogs can only be managed with these devices fitted and tight. Of course, the best approach is to breed the aggression out of these dogs - the same can be said for certain leaders in the region - unfortunately, this can take generations - in the meantime, a very tight leash is the only way as opposed to letting the dog walk on a loose leash in the hope that all will be well.
By the way, have you looked at a map of the area lately? Do you know where Yemen is situated? Iran is angling at a very strategic stranglehold on the entry point to the Suez Canal. With eventual Nuclear Weapons, just imagine what fanatical Religious leaders guided by Martyrdom are capable of. Now also imagine the escalation once the Iran agreement is concluded - Saudi or Egypt next? Great, multiple Arab States with Nuclear weapons (Shiite vs Sunni)...now that is what I call a death wish - not just for them, but for all of us...
...thanks to Obama - did you say "Control on the inevitable"?
Sorry, but that is a defeatist and pacifist approach that only works when all parties operate from the same rulebook.
