At Least I Know What the Hawks Want Now

I have complained many times before about not understanding hawks' views on the Iran nuclear deal.  They made hysterical warnings about the dangers of Iran getting a nuclear bomb and then, when John Kerry came up with an actual framework to prevent such a development, hysterically denounced the framework as surrender and demanded that we not place restrictions on Iran's bomb making capacities.  All the while insisting that the didn't want to start a war.

What did they want?

Well, watching events unfold in Iran and North Korea, I am at least seeing what super-hawks think should be the proper approach to diplomacy with a hostile country:

(1)   Draw up your wish list
(2)   Declare every item on the list to be non-negotiable.
(3)   Refuse any negotiations until the other country has implemented every item on our wish list.
(4)   Assure the other country that just as soon as they have implemented our wish list, we are ready to sit down and negotiate whether they get anything in return.

Admittedly, Donald Trump did not follow this proper sequence with North Korea, leading to hysterical outcry from the usual suspects that he was engaged in "appeasement" and should never have agreed to a summit until the other side surrendered.  But no bother Pompeo and Bolton made sure that nothing would come of it -- made clear that a gradual climb-down with concession traded for concession was not in the cards, and that only when North Korea scrapped all nuclear weapons, all nuclear programs, and all missiles of any kind would there be any relaxation of sanctions.

The approach to Iran has been similar except that in addition to scrapping all nuclear enrichment and all missiles, the Iranians must also withdraw all troops from Syria, stop backing factions in Iraq, cease all support for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis and generally cease being a "threat" to its neighbors. 

In other words, never negotiate until the other side surrenders unconditionally, and on all issues. 

It also shows what even supporters of the agreement with Iran mean when they say it is not "perfect."  They mean that Iran did not surrender unconditionally and get nothing in return.  If that is your standard of an acceptable agreement, you are effectively saying that diplomacy should have no part our our toolkit.