Fareed Zakaria

When you have a bad strategy with unclear and shifting goals, it doesn't really matter how many people you have cheering for you on the side.

But you take all of that and you say those are the costs.

And the benefit is, as far as I can tell, is...

quite close to zero in the sense that Iran already had a nuclear program that was largely defunct.

Israel was already far more powerful than Iran and could easily defend itself.

I see it as an absolute exercise in willful, reckless destruction.

A destruction of lives, destruction of massive amounts of American military hardware, destruction of America's reputation.

But I also think what the president of the United States says matters.

And you can't just excuse something on the argument, oh, it's a clever negotiating strategy.

First of all, it was a stupid, lousy negotiating strategy that has ended up with the United States much weaker than it was.

But even if it were, I don't think that the ends justify the means in situations like this.

And certainly not when the things you say

deeply erode your credibility, your moral reputation, you know, the core of your values.

I think those things are real and throwing them away for momentary gain in some poker-like negotiation isn't worth the price.

This is the key point.

If this is a workable basis for negotiation.

why the hell didn't we negotiate on this basis two months ago, three months ago, five months ago?

Why did we need the war?

The Iranians would have been comfortable with seven of those demands, by which I mean there are three that are more demanding than they would have had.

Three months ago, they would have never said that they have the right to control the Strait of Hormuz.