No talks between us and Iran prevent the reach for the bomb. On that McCain is correct.

Iran's decision based on our choices to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing we do now will scratch the nuke itch.

Now we live with the consequences of our choices, including the military tie-down that rules out regime change in Iran with military force.

All that is basically decided, along with our inability to stop Iran's reach, thanks also to Tehran's none-too-surprising support (or lack of serious resistance) from Russia, China and India.

We can deal with that emerging reality or we can finger-point over the past.

The question is, Who do you want to deal with this emerging strategic reality? The cool negotiator or the anger-management guy?

Ah, but what of the "irrationality" factor?

I repeat my question.

Why do we get so wobbly over Iran? We have met this package (nation-state/failed revolutionary power talking trash and sporting new nukes) twice before and finessed it nicely (and frankly, both the USSR and PRC were far more successful).

This "Mao" already has a bevy of "Nixons" knocking at the door over oil and gas.

We learn to accept our lack of leverage here or we're going to be consistently flabbergasted at our lack of success--as in, more of the same old, same old.

Our problem remains the same: we are unable to see the strategic reality for what it is and we're perplexed that our attempts at global gun control aren't working.

So I repeat the question differently: turn the page or reread the same passage over and over again, hoping for a different outcome?