The argument against the Iran Deal’s publicized “merits” to extinguish the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is that a better deal could have been negotiated. The problem with that assertion is the foolish presumption that what currently exists qualifies as an agreement with any degree of effectiveness.
It’s downright terrible and embarrassing on an epic level.
“Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work,” the Associated Press reports.
Don’t be fooled: The P5+1 did not engage in negotiations with Iran all these years, but instead gradually collapsed into a series of devastatingly bad concessions to one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
What did the United States get in this agreement? The answer is increasingly nothing relative to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The consequences of this deal for Israel are directly connected to its survival.
The key question in all of this is why did it take Secretary Kerry and Co. so long to give the farm and all the land away? The willful incompetence and delusional views of the Obama Administration (not just with this deal) is simply incomprehensible.
If we don’t like President Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad deal, tough luck because we’ll likely have to live with President Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad deal.
Out of curiosity, are there any international sanctions against common sense? If so, the U.S. and its P5+1 allies are in trouble.
“Upon verification that Iran is keeping its commitments to dismantle much of its nuclear program, major economic sanctions will be lifted, effectively releasing more than $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets.”
— Justin Fishel & Molly Hunter, ABC News
The key word with Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon has been verification, yet the early details released thus far on this historic deal do not inspire hope that the international community will prevent Iran from building the bomb. Is Iran giving the international community unprecedented, completely transparent access to their most protected facilities? No. Has the United States and its allies forced Iran to abandon its existing nuclear program? No. Instead, what’s been negotiated is a timeline as to when Iran will build their bomb, not if.
And the effective economic sanctions will cease to impede Iran and the billions of dollars will, accordingly, be reinvested into reaching their primary objective of weaponizing to a terrifying capacity after predictably deceiving future inspectors.
If the objective of this historic deal was to prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, mission not accomplished. President Obama merely made this a future president’s prodigious foreign policy migraine. It may be viewed as a good deal today, but it’s a devastating “solution” when Iran has their world-altering bomb in the foreseeable future. Iran will surely skirt the agreed upon rules and regulations (like always) as they adjust their calculations for their underground science project to continue by the end of the next decade, with the ambition to become a nuclear superpower.
A nuclear Iran now appears inevitable.
“Iran has not agreed to robust “anytime, anywhere” nuclear inspections. They have not agreed to a heightened level of scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already been frustrated by Iran’s lack of cooperation. Snap inspections have been replaced by pre-approved “managed” inspections, with no guaranteed access to all Iranian nuclear sites, or to military facilities where secret research may be carried out. These are weaker verification provisions than under the 1990s Agreed Framework with North Korea under which Pyongyang still developed nuclear weapons.”
— James S. Robbins, USA TODAY
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu severely criticized the deal. Put simply, he said it was a “historic mistake for the world.” We all know the the life-and-death stakes for Israel on this issue. And the virtual silence from the surrounding Arab nations is very telling. It’s probably a safe hypothesis that the Middle East is about to begin its own nuclear arms race, with the potential to enact a new cold war and possibly a new world order in the forthcoming ten to fifteen years. Iran’s neighbors will build comparable arsenals to defend themselves as a realistic precaution. The collateral damage of what’s likely coming as a consequence of this deal is greater than the perceived short-term benefits.
This deal failed to diminish Iran’s supreme ambition.
The Obama administration was so desperate for a deal/photo-op for legacy purposes that it didn’t negotiate for its sole purpose: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some foolishly argued that no deal meant impending war, which was utter nonsense. The alternative to a perceived bad deal was a better deal. Unfortunately, the latter never came to fruition due to the United States and its P5 + 1 partners’ impatience and refusal to (in a unified front) declare and defend a red line of crippling conditions against Iran.
“There’s no strategic plus in (the Iran deal) for the United States,” Stein continued. “All there is is just taking Iran, a meddlesome, dangerous, killer, terrorist state and making a nuclear power. People who want to die, people who’ve pledged to die in order to eliminate Israel. This is a scary group of people to allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”
— Ben Stein, The Steve Malzberg Show
President Obama has routinely criticized the late President Reagan’s policies. Interestingly though, Mr. Obama is now adopting Reagan’s, “trust, but verify” mantra he used during the Cold War for his 2015 Iran deal. However, one important distinction needs to be made about the these two presidents and this phrase: Reagan ended the Cold War, whereas Obama appears to be starting one.
Strong leadership is about making decisions that will lead to a brighter future. It seems like the words that were missing from the Iran nuclear negotiations on our side were strong leadership. The lack of this essential characteristic is what inherently prevented a better deal from being established and ultimately signed.
Unfortunately, strong leadership is not verifiable in President Obama.
Mitt Romney will not be the 45th President of the United States of America.
Most of America (including his family) likely approve of this decision. It’s not because he’s not qualified. Rather, he had his chances, most consequentially in 2012, and did not deliver. However, make no mistake about it, Mitt Romney will be a factor come election day 2016.
First, polls have revealed that a majority of Americans wish Romney had defeated President Obama in 2012. There’s a buyers remorse among many voters, specifically after Romney correctly forecast key foreign policy issues, like Russia as just one example. Plus, the economy’s foundation is weak, the tax system is outdated, entitlement programs need structural changes, unemployment is really 10-11% because of stunningly low labor workforce participation, there is a lack of quality jobs being created and debts and deficits are still soaring (wait a couple years for the latter to skyrocket again). Romney’s biggest strengths are as a job creator and a business leader. And despite the fact he isn’t running, people will remember their vote in 2012 and who and what vision they chose instead and the subsequent results both at home and abroad.
Most Americans are increasingly aware of the ineptitude of Obama’s foreign policy decisions and how it’s led to a perception (and reality) that the world continues to burn without a functioning extinguisher in sight. Also, the refusal to acknowledge our enemy by name is a major problem and, quite frankly, an inconceivable embarrassment of common sense.
Second, Romney can make good on his recent priority to help improve those living in poverty during the next two years (and beyond!) with his knowledge of lifting people up with opportunity, resources and, most importantly, time. He has the time to, as NBC says, “make a difference.” As has been mentioned on this blog, the Republican Party needs to prove that their economic philosophy of equal opportunity and belief in the power and ingenuity of the individual is superior to the predictable failings of big government fiscal liberalism. They need to make clear the correlation between the success of a local economy with the educational success of the community and its citizens (public and private schools) and how it creates a sustained environment of achievement and high standards, as well as how it improves the safety of that community. Romney (and other conservative leaders) need to embrace this challenge by bringing their economic philosophy and successful business records into the poorest neighborhoods to show (not tell) how fiscal conservatism works for everybody. The rewards will last generations.
The economic policies of President Obama and liberal mayors and governors have by-and-large not improved the lives or opportunities for the poor. The door is wide open for an innovative new idea to shine the American Dream on those in the forgotten corners of society who live in inescapable poverty. This is especially important for Romney himself after his infamous “47%” remark.
Mitt Romney will not be the 45th President of the United States of America, but he will be the third person people think about when they elect the new leader of the free world. Even if the Republican nominee is more libertarian than Romney on a host of issues, his presence will be influential regardless. There’s the saying that our first impression is everything. Yes. It’s also a fact that people don’t easily forget important people or important events.
Romney now has time to prove the latter true.
“In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance.”
–President Obama, 2015 State of the Union Address
Just weeks following the devastating terrorist attacks in Paris, France by radical Islamists (a phrase he again refused to say), followed by terror raids made across Europe, and President Obama strangely took the view that the United States is clearly winning in foreign policy. Specifically, this was concerning the battle against overseas violence/disgruntled workplace violence/extremists who aren’t in any way motivated and inspired by a perversion of a very specific religion.
Does he fully understand our enemy?
Thomas Friedman had some insight into this subject in his recent article, “Say It Like It Is.” Instead of listing the various problem spots and scenarios around the world, it’s probably better to let America’s Middle East savant Richard Engel of NBC News react to what he heard from the president on the foreign policy front.
President Reagan didn’t just perfectly articulate the phrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” that became a historical moment for the world. He always led with words and actions of strength. He clearly understood the problems facing the United States. He was cognizant of the importance and relevance of American leadership at home and on the world stage to his friends and enemies.
Neither of which seems to be the reality today.
James Taylor may be a very busy man during the next couple years…