Mullen’s formulation of geostrategic equivalance ignores a massive difference between the two outcomes: Even assuming the degree and kind of “destabilization” would be the same in both the cases of attack and appeasement–
Yeah, just stop right there. If you see no meaningful option within the yawning chasm between “attack” and “appeasement” then you are too stupid or too dishonest to engage in this discussion. And you certainly don’t get to say other people ignore “massive differences” relevant to national strategy. (Oh, and don’t call Kristol a warmonger!)
Plus, had Kristol kept his ears open, he might have heard something different from Mullen on Iran.