Iran Nuclear Deal Indefensible

Charles Krauthammer has an article titled:  Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran: Worse than We Could Have Imagined

Russ has an article the same day titled:

The Iran Deal Is Worse Than We Thought

Here is why it is so terrible. We are going to allow them to have a ballistic missile program.

Iran is not going to allow any inspectors on its nuclear sites.

Moreover if we have any objections the Iranians have 24 days to respond. One of the ways to test for nuclear activity is to test the soil. The Iranians will tar over all the land around a nuclear site and then let inspectors in to inspect.

Nowhere was there any talk about releasing the four American prisoners that Iran is holding.


RushFirst Rush:

“Iran Bans US Inspectors From All Nuclear Sites.”  There’s no 24 days. There’s no nothing.  We do not and cannot get inspectors into Iran.  How many of you people are aware that thanks to the New START Treaty… Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. That’s what START stands for. There’s a New START Treaty Obama signed with the Russians in 2009.

Do you know that as a result of that, the Russians have been inspecting our nuclear sites at will?  You didn’t know that. I can tell.  The Russians have been visiting our nuclear sites at will.  We allow Russian inspectors into America to inspect our nuclear sites up to 18 times a year.  You know why?  ‘Cause Obama wants to de-nuke!  He wants to show our enemies that we’re good guys, that we’re not the bad actors we used to be under the cowboy Bush and the cowboy Reagan.

So Russian inspectors get into the US 18 times a year, at will, with our cooperation, but we have been banned from inspecting Iran nuclear sites.  That’s just tip of the iceberg.  It’s even worse than you thought.

Now, what I have here about John Kerry is an AP story in which Kerry says that there was not one meeting that took place during all of these nuclear talks in which the US did not raise the issue of four Americans still held captive by Tehran.  Well, now, wait a minute.

In a press conference earlier this week Obama told us we couldn’t tie these four hostages to this deal because then the Iranians would realize that they could get even more concessions from us.  Remember that?  So Obama’s out there saying, “We didn’t bring these guys up! It’s a separate thing going on.”  Here’s Kerry saying, “There wasn’t a day that went by, there wasn’t a negotiating session that didn’t happen without me bringing up these four guys.” They’re lying through their teeth!

The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing! All of this is a hodgepodge mismirage.  It’s just gobbledygook.  “Kerry stressed that the issue,” the four American hostages, “was even discussed during his final meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif…”


Charles KrauthammerSecond Krauthammer:

When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional-arms and ballistic-missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

Obama claimed in his Wednesday news conference that it really doesn’t matter because we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah

But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the use of force, yet now he blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement — the arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to interdiction.

Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports.

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

The action now shifts to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It’s irrelevant.

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese, or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

Should Congress then give up? No. Congress needs to act in order to rob this deal of, at least, its domestic legitimacy. Rejection will make little difference on the ground. But it will make it easier for a successor president to legitimately reconsider an executive agreement (Obama dare not call it a treaty — it would be instantly rejected by the Senate) that garnered such pathetically little backing in either house of Congress.

It’s a future hope, but amid dire circumstances. By then, Iran will be flush with cash, legitimized as a normal international actor in good standing, recognized (as Obama once said) as “a very successful regional power.” Stopping Iran from going nuclear at that point will be infinitely more difficult and risky.

Which is Obama’s triumph. He has locked in his folly. He has laid down his legacy and we will have to live with the consequences for decades.

Read more at:







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s