I was on a radio show last night where I wound up in a debate about whether or not diplomacy was likely to be able to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue in a satisfactory manner. It occurred to me that one issue I was having that, in retrospect, often fogs these issues, is that my interlocutor wanted to conceive of diplomacy as a kind of poor man's coercive tool... Like military force is this really awesome coercive tool that maybe you're hesitant to use, so instead you might try diplomacy, but maybe diplomacy's not tough enough so we're back to force.
Fundamentally, is it any surprise that the people who think that any form of compromise is weakness when it comes to their domestic game of hardball should act any differently when they take their game on the international circuit? Remember, this is the crowd that says "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."