OP-ED: Deter Iran

We are living in a Pandora's box global nuclear environment. The only way to move away from deterrence is to stop those countries that have the technological skills to build nuclear power plants from building. This will not happen, it is too late. How do you take punitive action against Russia for assisting oil rich Venezuela in nuclear proliferation? Iran has oil, Venezuela has oil. They don't have nuclear weapons. To dominate their "multipolar" region, they need nuclear weapons. As has been proven with North Korea and Iran, no amount of "principled diplomacy" or legal tautologies are going to prevent the ascension of these countries into the nuclear realm. The question for Obama therefore becomes, what will? If not he is going to have to live with an anti-American Russian proxy government with (peaceful, yeah right) nuclear capabilities in the Western Hemisphere. Is this a Cuban missile crisis in Obama's future on this time in Venezuela and will Obama be ready to commit U.S. forces unilaterally in U.S. national security interests or will he pull a Clinton and wait for global consensus?

"It is likely that this country's state and sub-state adversaries may simply dismiss all U.S. threats as the false bravado of a weak and dying civilization." Assuming Mlle. Adversaire has only a heap of rusty clichés where her brains ought to be, that is. How if ThatOne™ (prolonged be His shadow!) was to treat the Lesser Breeds Without to ... lemme see ... treat ’em to "the undeniable bravado of a weak and dying" BARBARISM? [1] Such is the imbecility level that one can not be sure what the nuke-you-larry neocomrades themselves want "false bravado" to mean. They have hit a countersemantic trifecta here at the language-goes-to-the-dogs track. If ‘bravado’ refers to a quality intrinsically false -- and that is, I believe, the way expensively instructed users of Mandarin English ordinarily understand it -- the mess provided by Messers Beres & Mcinernny [_sic_] & Vallely may be expressed as ( false ( false boldness ) ) which obviously, the expression having been simplified, means A. REALLY false boldness, an outrageous bluff, or B. truth-based boldness, no bluff at all, or maybe C. somethin’ else. Obviously. As happens, alas!, only too often amongst the honourable and gallant neocomrades of the Party of Big Management, BM&V manage to think they are risin’ when in fact, well, . . . . just consider what is, in the appraisal of the present keyboard, their most resplendent gem of discerebration: [2] "As to VICTORY, there may no longer be any formal war-terminating agreements or other identifiable demarcations. In dealing with rational and irrational enemies, both state and sub-state, we will have to adapt to conditions of protracted uncertainty about conflict outcomes." "Ah, General MacArthur, sir, is that the VICTORY you once said there was no substitute for? A 'protracted uncertainty about' who it was that won the engagement? Say it ain’t so, Doug!" Merry days.