American Elephants

Obama Casually Explains the Deal With Iran. by The Elephant's Child

President Obama appeared at the Brooking’s Institution’s Saban Forum in Washington D.C. He responded to questions put to him by Haim Saban, the forum chairman. The discussion focused on the “interim deal” with Iran, although it covered the Israel-AP peace talks and the agreement with Syria to destroy its chemical weapons as well.

The Washington Times covered Obama’s appearance here, and Politico here, if watching the video is beyond your tolerance level. If Mr. Obama believes that he is actually getting anything in exchange for the relaxation of sanctions, he is far more ill-informed about foreign policy than I thought.

In spite of our current economic problems, the United States has the power to impose crippling sanctions on Iran and to enforce them. Iranian chants of “Death to America” are not children’s playground taunts. We were told, before Geneva, that Iran was just a month from a bomb. Iran is well supplied with oil and gas, and does not need nuclear power to keep the lights on. Their sole interest is nuclear weapons and the ability to strike Israel and America at will. They have in mind the return of the Mahdi and the reestablishment of the Caliphate. When they keep telling us so, sooner or later, we possibly should start believing that they mean it.

We don’t require Iran’s agreement to accept crippling economic sanctions. We just impose them.

Iran, Obama said, will always retain some nuclear enrichment capability simply because it is no longer a terribly difficult process.

“Theoretically, they will always have some capability because technology here is available to any good physics student at pretty much any university around the world,” he said. “And they have already gone through the cycle to the point where the knowledge we are not going to be able to eliminate. But what we can do is eliminate the incentive for them to want to do this.”

As he has before, Obama defended the six-month deal to relax some economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for some weapons inspections as not ideal, but better than the alternative of doing nothing.

When I hear people criticize the Geneva deal say it’s got to be all or nothing, I would just remind them that if it’s nothing, if we did not even try for this next six months to do this, all the breakout capacity we are concerned about would accelerate in the next six months,” Obama said. “They’d be that much closer to breakout capacity six months from now. And that’s why I think it’s important for us to test this proposition.”

“Not ideal but better than doing nothing?”  “You see we can’t expect Iran to relinquish its nuclear program because it won’t!”

If one thought that preventing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons was the object of the exercise, then the Geneva deal is incomprehensible. The only real explanation of the deal is that we seek to protect Iran’s nuclear program and accept their development of nuclear weapons.

%d bloggers like this: