Scott Bates Feb. 15 guest commentary, "Sen. Murphy's smart approach to Iranian nuclear negotiations," is wildly wrong as to the best diplomatic approach to Iranian nuclear negotiations.

The Murphy-Feinstein or bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bills? The latter would provisionally put in place new sanctions were the current talks to fail; the former would hold off on any new sanctions until Iranian violations of current or new agreements, or its refusal to timely sign a deal.

The choice, then, is between warning Iran before any agreement vs. reacting only after cheating has been discovered.

Only sanctions brought Iran to the table. While running out the clock, it has markedly advanced all interlocking aspects of its nuclear weapons program: enrichment, weaponization and missile delivery systems. Only the threat beforehand of re-imposition of suspended sanctions and imposition of new ones might encourage Iranian concessions needed to avert a nuclear-armed Iran.

Setting aside that Iran has already refused to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, repeatedly lied about its nuclear activities, and is the world's leading terrorism sponsor, the history of such agreements with rogue states is not encouraging.

They have every incentive to cheat, while agreement guarantors have every incentive to overlook violations. And, short of a mushroom cloud, those probably would be.