And makes little sense in the process.

OK, so he wants the threat of tougher economic sanctions, but says we need to avoid provocation. Exactly what are economic sanctions if not provocation? As Ed Morrissey says, tough sanctions wouldn’t work if they weren’t provoking. Nevermind the fact that we’d like to place tougher sanctions on them now, but we have the little issue of Russia and China blocking anything too tough.

As Ed also notes, where was Obama when Kyl-Lieberman came up for a vote? The bill named the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and placed tougher sanctions on Iran. Where was he? Opposing the bill and bragging about it. Clinton, Durbin, Menendez, Rockefeller, Reid, Whitehouse, and other top Democrats understood the importance and voted for the bill, passing it 76-22. Obama claimed the reason was it somehow have authorization to use military force, but the controversial bits had long been removed and Durbin stated that he only voted for it after they were.

Then there’s the argument about diplomacy Obama uses. As Ed writes:

He then walks through the tired “outsourcing” argument on diplomacy with Iran. The US has pursued a multilateral approach with Iran, leveraging the trading relationships with Iran’s partners in Europe. We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran for good reason — they sponsor terrorism around the world, targeting American assets and those of our allies. Democrats used to complain that Bush was a unilateralist, and now they complain that he’s not. It’s absurd, especially since the supposed partner with whom Obama would speak, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the worst provocateur in the region.

Gee, don’t we want this guy as Commander-In-Chief for 4 years?