Both pieces should be read by the use-of-force advocates, and responded to in the comments section.
GD cannot help mocking those who believe in using force against Iran, “this beng 1938 and all,” and then asks:
Does this make me a defeatist and a pie-in-the-sky striped pants wearing cocktail-swiller who is obsessed with talking and process, just for talking and processes sake?
No, but it doesn’t make GD persuasive either. All the talk of talks after all the talking that has gone on means to me that GD is, ultimately, against force no matter what the Iranians do.
If I am correct about this, we have reached the big divide between those unwilling to allow a theocracy that uses terror as a weapon with at least a large segment of its leadership committed to hastening the return of the 12th Imam and those who would rather run the risk of such a regime with nukes than war with such a regime before it has nukes.
This is very similar to the choice that confronted France and England in the mid- to late-30s. The powerful proponents of appeasement in that era did not urge appeasement because they were cowards, but because they were wrong about what Hitler intended, which was war.
GD and others hate the talk of the ’30s, and mock it, not because it is an unpersuasive. Just the opposite in fact.