Filed under: Bureaucracy, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Middle East, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Fantasy and Pipe Dreams, It's Not a Treaty, The Iran Deal
Obama has attempted to declare that the Iran Deal is not a treaty, but some kind of executive agreement. If it were a treaty, there are Constitutional laws about treaties that govern the situation, and he would have to present the agreement to Congress, and if Congress refused to pass it, it would be all over. The only reason he is claiming that this is not a treaty is because he doesn’t want Congress to have any authority over whether it lives or dies. How can he get away with that?
The first problem with the deal is that it gives Iran an undeserved respectability that comes simply from being allowed to sign a significant international agreement, with six world powers.
Any agreement has to begin with the ugly but accurate assumption that Iran will act in bad faith and cheat at every opportunity. Papers captured from the Osama bin Laden raid have confirmed that Iran has partnered with al Qaeda, and has supported the Islamist terrorist group. Richard Epstein says:
The agreement starts off on a grand note: “The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” But it is straight downhill from there.
Worse still, China and Russia should not be understood as adverse to Iran, their present and future ally. They are better understood as a Fifth Column against the West, and Iran’s many other foes, whose role in the negotiations is akin to the role that Vladimir Putin played in the embarrassing negotiations over chemical weapons in Syria that all but destroyed Obama’s credibility in foreign policy. Putin will be happy to take any excess uranium ore off the hands of the Iranians. But at the most opportune time, he might be prepared to return it to Iran if doing so would benefit Russia. The Chinese, for their part, also sense weakness in the United States and the West, as they build up illegal islands in the South China Sea subject to our diplomatic objections that accomplish nothing.
Europe is in need of oil and natural gas to prevent Vladimir Putin from using energy as a club over them. They are also anxious to sell stuff to Iran, because European economies are not healthy. They must see this deal as a retreat from the basic guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of our allies. That may make them a little less hostile to Russia and China because they fear that they cannot rely on America. And the Saudis and the Israelis face a starker situation.
Iran funds Bashar al-Assad in Syria, backs Hamas, launches terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. They are quite clear about wanting to annihilate Israel. They are eager to confront their Sunni rivals like Saudi Arabia, and eager to annex Iraq. President Obama still cannot even say “Islamist terrorism.” The whole deal seems to be based on Obama’s odd idea that Iran wants to be a peaceful state, and we can appoint them to be in charge of the Middle East and make everyone else behave — so we can finally remove ourselves from the Middle East entirely — and the disaster of George W. Bush’s very bad and unnecessary war.
There is not the slightest indication that Iran would allow any inspections, nor that they would allow any interference with their program to acquire nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them. One might well ask why “intercontinental?”
U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has cast doubt on whether Iran will abide by the terms of a nuclear agreement between Tehran and U.S. led world powers.
Secretary Kerry says: “Nobody has ever talked about dismantling” Iran’s Nuclear Program, but in 2013, he insisted that dismantlement was the whole point. Kerry insists that the chants of “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel” are just something like PR for the enjoyment of the people, and don’t really mean anything.
When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged in them on this very topic,” Kerry said Thursday. “So this isn’t a question of giving them what they want. It’s a question of how do you hold their program back. How do you dismantle their weapons program? Not their whole program.
“Let’s understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we’ve achieved that. Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program, because when that was being talked about, that’s when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000.”
Does that make any sense at all? How have we dismantled their ability to build a nuclear weapon? They have made it clear that they don’t plan to allow any inspections, and we have to give them long advance notice, and we can’t inspect any military sites anyway.
Iran says it will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. Nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities. My understanding is that they have not formally signed anything. The signing will theoretically take place in 60 days. The Ayatollah Khomeinei has said that Iran will not sign anything.
Abe Greenwald, writing at Commentary magazine’s blog says:
If you think the United States just struck a poor nuclear deal with Iran, you’re right; but if that’s your key takeaway, you’re missing the point. Iran’s nuclear program was last on the list of the Obama administration’s priorities in talking to Tehran. The administration readily caved on Iran’s nukes because it viewed the matter only as a timely pretense for achieving other cherished aims. These were: (1) preventing an Israeli attack on Iran; (2) transforming the United States into a more forgiving, less imposing power; (3) establishing diplomacy as a great American good in itself; (4) making Iran into a great regional power; and (5), ensuring the legacies of the president and secretary of state as men of vision and peace. …
Obama came to office promising to limit American action as well. In his standard progressive view, the United States has been too eager to throw its weight around and impose its norms on other countries without giving sufficient thought to the resentment it might sow. He ended the war in Iraq and sought to remake the United States as a humble power. “Too often the United States starts by dictating,” he told a Saudi news outlet soon after being elected. He, by contrast, would do a lot of “listening.” The Iran negotiations became Obama’s magnum opus on the theme of listening. Americans listened to Iranians dictate terms, shoot down offers, insult the United States, and threaten allies. America has been humbled indeed.
But such humility is necessary if diplomacy is to be made into a nation-defining ethos. And if we could successfully negotiate with theocratic Iran, then surely Americans would see that diplomacy could conquer all. So, for the sake of proving this abstract principle, Obama foreclosed any non-diplomatic approach to Iran before a deal was reached. As he told Tom Friedman in April, “there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.” So declared, so demonstrated.
Do read the whole article. I think Mr, Greenwald is clear thinking, absolutely correct and positively frightening. Obama seems to be delusional.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment