Scott Walker is not entirely clear on the concept of negotiation:

On day one, January 20th, 2017, I’d pull back from that faulty deal. I think it’s a big error. I’d be willing to negotiate with Iran, but on our terms, not on their terms.

As he makes clear later on in the interview, Walker means that he wants to dictate terms to Iran and he wants Iran to accept them without any concessions from our side. That isn’t negotiating. It is the negation of negotiating, which tells us a lot about what hawks like Walker understand about diplomacy. Like many of them, they are in favor of a deal only so long as that deal involves the total capitulation of the other side. The “terms” he lays out amount to nothing more than an unrealistic wish list of things that Walker wants the Iranian government to do without offering even the smallest incentive to try to persuade them to agree to any part of it. So Walker confirms in these remarks that he is opposed to any deal with Iran, and he goes beyond that to demonstrate that he doesn’t know the first thing about how to negotiate with other governments.

Among other non-starters on his fanciful wish list, he would demand that Iran recognize Israel, end its support for all of its regional allies and proxies (he erroneously includes the Houthis among these), and completely dismantle their nuclear program*. Two of these are completely irrelevant to the nuclear issue, while the last one is guaranteed to be rejected. Walker’s “negotiating on our terms” amounts to nothing more than a desire to make successful negotiations impossible.

* Walker refers to Iran’s “illicit nuclear infrastructure,” but so long as Iran doesn’t use its program to build nuclear weapons it isn’t violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The infrastructure that Walker believes to be “illicit” is, in fact, just the opposite of that.