I agree with a lot of what you are saying and you know a lot about the situation. However if the Rouhani administration is strategic and its goals align with no

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and you know a lot about the situation. However if the Rouhani administration is strategic and its goals align with not having nuclear weapons then the international community should accept it strategically as well. Rouhani is indeed nothing more than a well dressed Islamic militant, but I don't think the other Sunni leaders are any better, even if they are also strategically allying with the US policies to further their objectives too. As for Syria I completely disagree, this version that Assad is slaughtering his people as if he is another demon with nothing better to do is just more US propaganda. He was fighting rebels but was just not careful and there are many civilian casualties. We don't need another headless state for radicals to occupy. The US meddled in Iraq, Libya and now is strengthening ISIS even more by destroying the sovereign nation (Syria) that is fighting it. If the US has a problem with Syria, then Congress should debate and then declare war on it. Talk of no-fly zones is ridiculous. We only don't like Syria because they are close to Iran. Saudi has reportedly pumped $700 million into rebel groups. Supporting these Sunni extremists and then claiming to also fight ISIS is foolish. Saudi and their coalition are attempting to establish their Sunni Islam across the middle east. And that is not better than Iran. At least in Congress Tulsi Gabbard is the one congressperson saying we need to let Assad stay and focus efforts on ISIS.