Pushing the "tough love" approach, Hillary seems to have Iran in its sights - just to tide her over any right wing objection to the deal, or some real ideological devotion?
We held Cuba hostage for 25 years - somehow we haven't learned our lesson re: Iran the same way we left Cuba prisoner of a political constituency long after there was any semblance of justification.
Similarly, we haven't figured out from Syria & Libya that arming rebels is a dangerous strategy, handing out weapons to so many crazed rebels - it's opening up a Pandora's Box time & again. Was it really necessary for Hillary to identify with the hope-and-a-prayer school of diplomacy tied somewhat with the Bushian "tough love/Axis of Evil" school?
Hardly. Sanity is a better policy approach - not an "intervention at all costs", not a tuck-tail-and-flee either. Why so hard to split the obvious difference? Bolstering her security creds doesn't have to come at the expense of framing it vis-a-vis real threats and non-threats.
I can understand specifics of "if they try to pull out a nuke, we pull out a nuke" basic pre-emption. But isn't it pretty obvious to the non-blinkered among us that most Iranians would rather be on the peaceful path to EU membership than threatening the Mideast with war? Even the mullahs have long lost their penchant for absurd crazed revolutionary cant - put them up against the Republican cast for president, and the mullahs sound fairly subdued and serious. Now, sadly, I guess we get to add Hillary to that contrast - I guess pre-emptively sucking up to Bibi is more important than fixing 15 years of Mideast mismanagement. Bleh.