Good article, Ed.

There are a few points I'd make.  

One is about that arguments coming primarily from liberals - that the alternative to having a deal is war.  No, the alternatives include a better deal or no deal or regime change.  So it isn't between this deal and war.  (Why do we find ourselves in a culture where so few can't see that simple fallacy?)  (And who doesn't see that this is actually not a deal... it is press fodder given while Obama/Kerry hope this 'proposed framework' will become a deal.)

Here is another point:  If the deal isn't so solid and so verifiable and one that can be adopted with such a high degree of certainty will we would know that Iran won't ever get nuclear weapons while still supporting terrorism and still wanting to wipe Israel off the map, then it is a deal that does two terrible things at the same time:

   1.) It lets Iran get a nuclear weapon for sure (the only question is, "When?"  After many years, or just a few months),

   2.) It shields Iran from a military attack while it is pretending to be honoring a deal that can't be verified, while Obama and pals pretend it is a good deal.

So, if the not-so-good deal is really a shield, and if even if the progressives were right that the alternative to accepting this plan is war (and they aren't right) - then the real alternatives are between regime change, a conventional war and a nuclear war.

Ed,

The hard thing is trying to understand what Obama really believes.  Does he think that offering an open hand (with lots of concessions) will actually get Iran to become peaceful, give up terrorism, join the family of nations, etc.  Is it a narcissistic belief that his ideology, when he explains it to Iran, will be irresistable?  And that Iran only has to give a small opening and the rest will follow?  That is scary because it is so delusional.  

Another view is that he believes that Iran will get a nuclear weapon, no matter what anyone does, and he knows that it will start a nuclear arms race in the middle east, and he is okay with that because he thinks that it will somehow empower the region and somehow make them more mature, equal with the old colonialist powers... or something like that?.  That can't be - its too nutty.   (I want to believe that he and his advisors can see the obvious, but if they do, then no matter how I pull at it, I can't make sense of their motivations.)

Does he have such a hatred for Israel that he wants the Iranians to have nuclear parity - that it is a kind equality or social justice?  That too is pathological.

The far left has always been more concerned with the 'rights' of the criminal and identified more with rioters and looters than the good citizens.  Is this just some kind of mass mental/emotional disorder whereby some kind of deeply-held, repressed, inner view of themselves as bad (but redeemable, and successfully faking being good but not appreciated) is projected out onto those people who act out their 'badness' - criminals, terrorists, etc?  And the structure of this acquired disorder came from collecting the system of related ideas in epistemology, morality, sociology and politics - ideas that explain and justify this view of bad people.  The worst the person/nation, the more they must have been abused/oppressed, and the more we have to give them to make things 'just'?  (That's poorly explained, and also not a good thing to contemplate.)

Maybe he thinks he is preventing a conventional war in the middle east - a war that the thinks Israel would start if he can't shield Iran with an agreement, and then he thinks that when Iran has the bomb, Mutually Assured Destruction will keep them having any war.  Progressives always seem to react with a kind of passivity or protectiveness towards violent, or primitive governments - as if those governments couldn't be changed or deterred except by protecting and accomodating as if they bad because they were victims of oppressors or a part of some kind of sacred political eco-system, and if given aid and respect they will rehabilitate.  More nuttiness.

I really don't have a clue.  At some point the combination of no logic to their position, and no honesty or openness about their thinking leaves me bewildered.

Jules,

I don't know if Israel will wipe Iran off the map, but they will certainly attack rather than suffer a nuclear attack.  So when Obama says that what he is doing is the alternative to war, it is, like you said, actually the cause of the next war.