It's probably fair to say that most people following the controversies over the Iran deal have never actually read it and are relying on what people who have read it on both sides are saying about it.
So who's right? Those who support the deal or those who oppose it?
Maybe the best way for anyone who hasnt actually read the deal to come to an informed conclusion is to evaluate what each side,
especially those in congress who have to vote for or against it, say in support
of or opposition to the deal and base their conclusions on that though the most recent Pew Research poll, as of Sept 9, shows only 21% of Americans support the deal. A bad omen for Democrats.
Those who oppose the deal offer these facts:
Fact: The deal doesn't prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delays it. Iran will be able to pursue a nuclear weapon in ten years if it
chooses to at best and will have the hundreds of billions in sanctions relief to do
so. This doesn't factor in Iran cheating and fooling IAEA inspectors.
Fact: The deal lifts the ban on Iran having ICBM's, something General Dempsy, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said should never happen, and whose only purpose is to
deliver a nuclear warhead at distances as far away as the United States.
Fact: The arms embargo will be lifted allowing Iran to buy and sell arms
and provide them terrorists around the world, something even Obama admits.
Fact: The former Deputy General of the IAEA has said the inspection
arrangment is not nearly good enough and it will be easy for Iran to cheat.And that allowing Iran to inspect itself at sites like Parchin where they had been caught cheating before trying to develop triggers for a nuclear bomb is ridiculous.
Fact: Iran said it has no intention of abiding by UN resolution
2231 which supported the deal and said they will not abide by the arms embargo which is to be lifted in a few years..Rouhani said," We will buy weapons anywhere we deem necessary. We won't wait for anybody's permission or approval and won't look at any resolution. We will sell weapons to anywhere we deem necessary." And he said it on television.
Fact: Rouhani said that the only way there can be middle east peace is for
Iran to be able to stand up to its enemies militarily. He said, " How can a weak country unable to stand up to the military power of its neighbors, rivals and enemies, achieve peace"? (That enemy
wouldn't be Israel would it? And since Israel has nuclear weapons, and since Rouhani has pointed out the necessity of Iran being able to "stand up" militarily to its enemies, isn't that a clear warning shot that Iran has every intention of eventually developing a nuclear weapon as soon as they can ?)
Fact: Throughout the course of the deal Iran will be allowed to declare military sites off limits to inspections and,that only certain declared nuclear sites can be inspected (besides Parchin which Iran will inspect itself)For any undeclared site that is not military the IAEA has 24 days to prove to a 7 country panel there are violations at the site. Of course if they could prove that without inspecting the site there would be no reason to inspect the site. So no wonder Iran loves the deal.)
Fact: The deal is heartily endorsed by Iran's president and Iran's top
military chief and the Ayatollah
Fact: Ayatollah Khamenei said on Sept 9 "Israel will never see the coming 25
years".
Those who support the deal and say:
"What's the alternative"?
"Anyone who thinks there can be a better deal is living in a unicorn fantasy
world"
"It's not what I had hoped for".
"It's this deal or war with Iran".
"There is no better deal available now" ( and why does it have to be right now? There
is no better deal available now because this is the deal Obama agreed
to and Iran accepted and is thrilled).
Wendy Wasserman Schultz: "The White House assured me the inspections can be
enforced" (why did she need the White House to assure her? Its the IAEA who does the inspections. It's not clearly spelled out in the deal? And she is voting for the deal based on Obama;s assurances when even he admits he hasn't seen the IAEA protocol made with Iran on inspections?)
Jerrold Nadler: "Obama promised me he'll use military force if necessary to stop Iran from
getting a bomb" (If necessary? Isn't this deal supposed to prevent the need for
military force? Wasn't it supposed to be the substitute for military force? Wasn't that the whole point?)
Obama: "The people who oppose the deal are the very people whose
judgement got us into the war in Iraq" ( so far those who support the Iran deal
include Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Colin Powell to name just a few supporting the deal whose
judgement got us into the war in Iraq).
Senator Mikulski: "For all it's flaws it's the best way to keep
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon" (its either the best deal that
could have been negotiated or it has a lot of flaws. It cant be both.)
MoveOn: Its Republican war hawks who are against the deal ( Like Chuck
Schumer, Robert Menedez, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin Steve Israel, and Nita Lowery all liberal or moderate Democrats?)
MoveOn;" It's 60 days or its war with Iran!. Those opposing the deal are war mongers who want
war." (so those who wanted war with Iran all along need this deal to fall through to start a war they could
have started 15 years ago? And if the deal falls through, then what? Obama starts a war? The president who reneged on a pledge for a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons is going to start a war? Who exactly starts this war in 60 days if the deal falls through?)
Obama: "Those who oppose the deal have "common cause" with Iran's hardliners" (like Iran's top military commander who loves the deal and who
congratulated Assad for humiliating the U.S. and the Ayatollah Khaemeni who has
also endorsed the deal?)
Obama: "99% of everyone supports the deal" (CNN polls showed 52% want
congress to kill the deal and in new Sept. 9 Pew Poll only 21% say they support it).
Michigan senator Gary Peters: "despite my serious reservations I
will reluctantly vote against a motion of disapproval".(is that a quadruple negative?)
Senator Wyden: " This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy
Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. It's not the agreement I
would have accepted but it's better than no deal at all" (If its not the deal he
would have accepted why is he accepting it? And whatever happened to "no deal is
better than a bad deal"?)
UK Foreign secretary Phillip Hammon: "We want to
ensure the nuclear deal is a success by encouraging trade and
investment once sanctions were lifted". Really? So all Israel and the U.S.
had to do all this time was open a McDonald's in Tehran and make some trade
deals and that would have done the trick? Who knew?)
Hammond: "There is a huge appetite (in the UK) both on the part of our
commercial and industrial businesses to engage with the opportunity of Iran
opening up and there is a huge appetite for our financial institutions to
support that activity". I bet there is. But don't forget keeping Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon. That's important too right?
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who supports the deal said on Sept.9: " Israel will cease
to exist in 25 years. Israel will not see the coming 25 years." And Netanyahu was worried. How silly. And on improving future
relations with the United States and negotiating other issues, Khamenei said, " There will be no future negotiations on anything with the United States. We ousted the Great Satan. We will not let
it ( to Khamenie we are an "it") in through the window."
Hillary Clinton on supporting the deal: "Diplomacy is the balancing of
risk". (No it's not. Diplomacy is not the balancing of risk. Diplomacy is supposed
to eliminate future risks not balance them. Diplomacy seeks to avoid risks by
solving a political or territorial conflict by an agreement between the parties that permanently resolves the conflict without the use of force or other means of conflict to prevent future risk. It's purpose is to remove and resolve
conflicts, threats and future risk not balance it. If there is still a risk Iran can get a nuclear weapon in spite of this deal it's not diplomacy it's stupidity. )
On the question of what happens in ten years when the deal expires and Iran has ICBM's, the
arms embargo had been lifted, they have hundreds of billions in sanctions relief and can
legally pursue nuclear weapons?
John Kerry: "We'll see what happens, senator".
And Democrats wonder why they lose elections?
Posts
2 comments:
The Sanctions regime has a shelf life. Doing nothing, keeping the sanctions in place is not an option, it's a failure of diplomacy.
The only way you absolutely guarantee that Iran does not get nukes is by invasion and occupation. Iran is a sovereign nation and will only bend so much. With the clock ticking on the Obama Administration and no guarantee that a Democrat will follow him in office there was a narrow window of opportunity to use diplomacy instead of violence. Remember that even with the sanctions in place the Iranians were able to continue to thumb their noses at the IAEA and build up their nuclear infrastructure.
A "better deal" that is so much hot air, your 1. Dealing with some of the toughest negotiators in the world, Persians who have about 3,000 year of practice in High Stakes Diplomacy going back to Cyrus the Great. 2. Dealing with a sovereign state that is not going to roll over for anyone, least of all the US 3. A government that has it's own hardliners trying to sink this deal and it's own internal politics to think of. 4. Dealing with other nations in the world, two of which, Russia and China who at any time can just say "screw you" and start making serious coin by blowing up the sanctions regime. Once they take their ball and go home can France and Germany be far behind? The only reason we were able to keep the sanctions going was because we were negotiating in good faith with the Iranians. If becomes apparent that we are not negotiating in good faith, that we are just a proxy for Israeli demands for total dismantling of the Iranian nuclear project( that is not allowing the Iranians to have a national project at all, which they are allowed under the NPT) , which is beyond the pail and an insult to Sovereign state of Iran, we are on the outside looking in.
But where the argument really goes off the rails is in the suggestion that Iran is not only going to build a bomb but is also wanting to build ICBMs. The idea that the US would just sit still for such a thing is beyond preposterous. Or that even it Iran got such a weapons system that they would use it is ridiculous. US counter-force against Iran would guarantee the entire nation would become a bed of radioactive glass. How about blackmail or terrorist strike? Are our intelligence outfits that clueless that we could not figure out the responsible parties? We would not even have to counter-strike, just hit them where they live in the oil fields.
What people really fear about this deal is that after almost forty years of unvarnished hostility to the Islamic Republic the US may finally be trying a new route. This is very dangerous, but not in the way we are being told. Some very entrenched interests benefit from this hostility. Israel has been a major beneficiary in that it has carte blanche to do almost whatever it pleases in the region. A thaw in US-Iranian relations changes that dynamic, especially if the Likud Party of Israel is in power. The tail is not going to wag the dog as much as it use to. At the very least the attempt by Bibi to use the US as a proxy to bomb Iran is non-starter until January 2017. That Jolly little war has been put on hold for now.
"The Sanctions regime has a shelf life. Doing nothing, keeping the sanctions in place is not an option, it's a failure of diplomacy."
What shelf life? There was only one reason there were negotiations in the first place: Iran wanted them. They initiated them because they were being strangled by them. If the sanctions had a shelf life the Iranians would have simply waited for the expiration date to pass and wouldnt have needed to negotiate at all.
Secondly, Kerry said the only reason they didnt include the hostages and Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and arming terrorists is that it had nothing to do with the nuclear issues and they were afraid ( they are ALWAYS afraid) that bringing it up would muddy the waters and make the negotiations more difficult to impossible. So what happens? At the last minute Iran insists on a lifting of the ban on ICBM's which also have nothing to do their nuclear program (but everything to do with their military program) and also insist on an end to the arms embargo which also has nothing to do with their nuclear program and Obama and Kerry gave in. On those two points alone simply saying no would have made it a better deal. As the piece shows, all you have to do is read the Democrats almost ridiculous reasons for accepting it, " its not the deal I would have accepted" indicating Wyden among other did think a better deal could be had) to see what a botched and amatuerishly negotiated deal it was. As for the other countries, they wanted sanctions lifted as much as Iran so they could do business with them.
Post a Comment