Why you want to redirect to a discussion about Russia is curious.
It’s no more curious than the many posters who cite to Munich 1938. They’re drawing a historical analogy - and so am I . I’m saying that negotiation even with bad guys who sponsor terrorism doesn’t automatically make you an appeaser. If it did, Reagan was an appeaser for negotiating with Soviets - and striking a deal that left them with far more nuclear capability than Iran has.
Bottom line: I prefer some realistic negotiated deal with Iran over a war with Iran. In my mind, that’s following Reagan’s example, and it’s certainly following common sense. A lot of the same folks who want war with Iran also promoted the Iraq war - and I consider that war to be a historic disaster.
A problem I have with the way Obama is trying to sell this is as he is positioning it as a binary choice, Some type of agreement, or war. This is a straw man and a false premise. The sanctions in place have crippled the Iranian economy and have basically impeded Iran's ability to build up its military resources. These sanctions have been working. What Obama is doing is cutting a deal that will put billions of dollars a year into the Iranian economy for the rulers of Iran to do with however they please. All the happy talk coming from Iran is simply to get their hands on this much needed money. This will expedite Iran reaching it's stated goals, and those goals are very frightening and likely will result in many deaths. Tightening sanctions and keeping the pressure on the Iranian economy is a cost effective and safer alternative than allowing billions to flow into Iranian economy as Obama deal will do immediately.