Tightening the Screws on Israel

 

Let me be blunt. The Iranian deal always was a disaster and, after President Netanyahu’s presentation, we’re relearning what we already knew. Mama Toad’s post did a great job of soliciting input from Ricochetti about Netanyahu’s statement. And if you want an outsider’s view, take a look at David Harsanyi’s article in The Federalist. I encourage you to offer your opinion on this dangerous and ridiculous agreement, but this OP will take two different directions, particularly regarding Israel. One question is: what do we do next on the Iran agreement? The second addresses a different topic: what do you think are the dangers of the protests in Gaza at the border with Israel?

So let’s look at Iran first. They’ve lied from the start, in spite of “guarantees” for transparency and investigations by the IAEA. In its February 22, 2018 report, the IAEA summary reads as follows:

The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used (LOFs) declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities for Iran remained ongoing. Since Implementation Day, the Agency has been verifying and monitoring the implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

I assume the IAEA has only investigated those places the Iranians originally agreed to open, and no one has any way of knowing if other sites had been built and were being used long before the agreement with the Obama administration. Given the repeated lies about their developing a nuclear program, why should we believe they’re claim of transparency?

Let’s remember that Israel never approved of this agreement. As Harsanyi says in his article:

Now that the framework for sanctions has been destroyed, there are few good options left. But the agreement, as it stands, is worse than worthless. Rather than setting firm limits, the deal gave Iran cover and time to continue its efforts, making war with Israel more of an inevitability.

The Jewish state can’t allow a Holocaust-denying adversary with terrorist proxy armies on its borders to have the power to destroy them, or even blackmail and threaten the entire region at best — something Iran has engaged in for more than a decade without even having its hands on nuclear weapons.

Many observers state that Netanyahu’s presentation only offered information that was already known. So let me get this right: We already knew that Iran had lied to us, and now that we have that actually verified, so what? Pardon my sarcasm, but does it matter to anyone that we have a flimsy agreement that is of great benefit to Iran and no benefit to anyone else? In addition, what did we gain from the illusion that Iran was slowing its development of nuclear weapons? Deferring the destruction of Israel or Saudi Arabia until 10 years from now, when Iran will potentially be even more dangerous?

Worse yet, Netanyahu hoped that his presentation would move Europe to reconsider its desire to “fix” the agreement. Instead, France and Britain believe the need for a pact is even more important now. Given the previously mentioned chronic lying, someone will need to explain this attitude to me.

I propose that on or before May 12, President Trump should drop the deal. Anything that Iran agrees to will be based on lies. We have no reason to trust them. Even if the deal is modified, they can continue their nuclear development within hidden sites. We may also at some point decide to destroy facilities that have been used for development. If we don’t bomb those sites, Israel probably will. They did it previously in Syria.

As if this crisis weren’t difficult enough for Israel, it is dealing with border protests in Gaza. Hamas claimed that they weren’t driving the protests, but we now know that Hamas has been helping out Palestinians who have been injured or the families of those killed:

Hamas has distributed payments to Palestinians injured and to the families of those killed in protests in the border region between the Gaza Strip and Israel, Hamas spokesman Hazim Qassim said on Thursday.

Palestinians critically and moderately injured received $500 and $200, respectively, while families of those killed were given $3,000, Qassim said, according to a report on the Islamist movement’s official website.

Protestors have also broken through the border fence in some spots, and have “rolled burning tires, hurled rocks and flown kites with flaming objects attached trying to damage the fence.”

Human rights groups have been protesting that the Israelis are shooting on unarmed protestors (not considering that weapons can easily be concealed). Amnesty International reports “that many of the injuries appear deliberately intended as life-changing and that they have video proof of peaceful protestors being shot at while their backs are turned to the fence along the Gaza Strip or while running away from the fence.”

Meanwhile, there is this report:

The weekly demonstrations are scheduled to continue until May 15, the Palestinian Nakba Day on which they remember their displacement following the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948. Part of that commemoration this year is expected to be possibly tens of thousands of Palestinians rushing the Israel barrier.

I wonder how well the fences will hold up then?

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 48 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Israel needs to ignore world opinion. It will never win, because the world hates the Chosen People. I don’t know why.

    • #1
  2. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn: And if you want an outsider’s view, take a look at David Harsanyi’s article in The Federalist.

    Thanks for this. An important read.

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Israel needs to ignore world opinion. It will never win, because the world hates the Chosen People. I don’t know why.

    Well, they’ve always made the ideal scapegoats. Not everyone thinks we’re chosen the same way you do, unfortunately. But of course, the Middle East is special. I think you’re right about ignoring public opinion, though. Why should they give it credence when the world will hate them anyway?

    Edit: I added in comment #7 that I was being sarcastic about the Middle East being special. I meant singled out for terrible treatment by many countries, and the UN, too.

    • #3
  4. John H. Member
    John H.
    @JohnH

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    But of course, the Middle East is special. 

    Of course? 

    • #4
  5. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    There is a stink of treason on the whole Iran nuclear deal affair from President Obama, to Secretary of State John Kerry and Ben Rhodes. And maybe Senator Bob Corker should be included for making this a “non-treaty” deal.

    President Obama certainly “adhered” to Iran in wanting to make them a regional hegemon. And we gave them “aid” in the billions and “comfort” in knowing that they duped us.

    What reason does Iran have now to stay in the agreement? Iran’s deputy foreign minister has said the deal is “unsustainable”.

    President Trump was right to label this deal as a disaster.

    We the American people suffer from this. What consequence is there to the three stooges Obama, Kerry, and Rhodes?

    • #5
  6. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    More than anything else, the Gaza protests are a dry run for a much larger project. That would be sending 150,000 “women and children” to swarm the fences near populated areas such as Kefar Sava.

    They want to see how we will react.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    John H. (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    But of course, the Middle East is special.

    Of course?

    I should have indicated I was being sarcastic @johnh. Since the Jews became a state, the rest of the world has given them more misery than any other country; just look at the condemnations from the U.N. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):
    We the American people suffer from this. What consequence is there to the three stooges Obama, Kerry, and Rhodes?

    Unfortunately I expect they will get off scot-free (no pun intended!) I’m not sure, @scottwilmot, but I heard on talk radio today that Ben Rhodes was feeding the media their stories during the time the agreement was being negotiated, so they’d put just the right slant on things. I couldn’t believe he was admitting it. If it wasn’t Rhodes, I’m sure it was someone from Obama’s administration. But none of us are surprised.

    • #8
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Israel P. (View Comment):

    More than anything else, the Gaza protests are a dry run for a much larger project. That would be sending 150,000 “women and children” to swarm the fences near populated areas such as Kefar Sava.

    They want to see how we will react.

    Thanks for chiming in @israelp. I suspected something like that might happen; it makes me ill. Do you have any other insights you can add? Do you have any thoughts on what would happen if they destroyed the fence (which I assume is possible)?

    • #9
  10. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    but I heard on talk radio today that Ben Rhodes was feeding the media their stories during the time the agreement was being negotiated, so they’d put just the right slant on things. I couldn’t believe he was admitting it. If it wasn’t Rhodes, I’m sure it was someone from Obama’s administration. But none of us are surprised.

    No, that’s all true. It was Rhodes. He bragged about it back then.

    And see also this:

    Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal

     

    • #10
  11. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Do you have any other insights you can add?

    I am better at seeing problems than solutions. Not to mention that it requires more specialized knowledge than I have.

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    but I heard on talk radio today that Ben Rhodes was feeding the media their stories during the time the agreement was being negotiated, so they’d put just the right slant on things. I couldn’t believe he was admitting it. If it wasn’t Rhodes, I’m sure it was someone from Obama’s administration. But none of us are surprised.

    No, that’s all true. It was Rhodes. He bragged about it back then.

    And see also this:

    Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal

     

    Now I am sick. This is so outrageous, it’s beyond belief. Obama could never have done this without the complicity of the media, either. Awful. Thanks for the links–I think.  ;-)

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    but I heard on talk radio today that Ben Rhodes was feeding the media their stories during the time the agreement was being negotiated, so they’d put just the right slant on things. I couldn’t believe he was admitting it. If it wasn’t Rhodes, I’m sure it was someone from Obama’s administration. But none of us are surprised.

    No, that’s all true. It was Rhodes. He bragged about it back then.

    And see also this:

    Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal

    Who was duped? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see it was a dangerous sham. 

    • #13
  14. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    “Many observers state that Netanyahu’s presentation only offered information that was already known. So let me get this right: We already knew that Iran had lied to us, and now that we have that actually verified, so what?”

    The reason why Netanyahu presentation was so, so important is that Trump and those in his cabinet can no longer hide behind any remnant of a fig leaf that we should keep this nuke  deal in place. It is now confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a very bad and very dangerous deal from beginning to end.   It is also confirmed that Iran, many in the Obama administration, including Buraq Hussein himself and many in the press blatantly lied to us.  It would  now be political suicide for Trump not to back away completely from this deal. He would be crucified by his own supporters.  This deal was clearly treasonous and anyone now claiming that there any reason to keep it is clearly a traitor, including Bob Corker.  There is now no excuse to keep any part of this deal. 

    The secondary reason why the Netanyahu’s presentation is so important is that it shredded Iran’s credibility completely.  Iran’s meddling terrorist and expansionist behavior may be soon put to the ultimate test and it’s loss of credibility may  be important because  there may be soon a war between Israel and Iran worth all the marbles in the Middle East  with the Saudi’s jumping in on Israel’s side to help Israel.  Remember the old Arab saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the ultimate we’re gonna have to  fight to death enemy of the Saudi’s is Iran.  Not Israel. 

    • #14
  15. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    The world hates Jews because you guys control the world’s banking and stuff.  And you used to make matzo balls out of the blood of Christian children.  You might still do that, I’m not sure.

    You also treated Oliver Twist and Desdemona very badly. 

    Kent

     

    • #15
  16. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    The world hates Jews because you guys control the world’s banking and stuff. And you used to make matzo balls out of the blood of Christian children. You might still do that, I’m not sure.

    You also treated Oliver Twist and Desdemona very badly.

    Kent

     

    Yeah, well, Isaac of York was a stand-up guy for Ivanhoe when he needed him. And Rebecca was as much a hero as Ivanhoe was.

    • #16
  17. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Percival (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    The world hates Jews because you guys control the world’s banking and stuff. And you used to make matzo balls out of the blood of Christian children. You might still do that, I’m not sure.

    You also treated Oliver Twist and Desdemona very badly.

    Kent

     

    Yeah, well, Isaac of York was a stand-up guy for Ivanhoe when he needed him. And Rebecca was as much a hero as Ivanhoe was.

    Sir Walter Scott only gave those Jewish characters some good lines because he needed a loan from the bank. 

    Kent

    • #17
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Believing Obama would sell out Israel isn’t hard for me. But what did he sell them out for? 

    • #18
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):

    Believing Obama would sell out Israel isn’t hard for me. But what did he sell them out for?

    A multipolar Middle East where all the poles are at peace with the US and therefore with reduced space for Russian Great Gamery seems like something that would be in the US national interest.  

    • #19
  20. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    These are not “protests.” They are an invasion, as Eugene Kontorovich wrote about a previous use of this tactic on Israel’s northern border.

    The hostile nations surrounding Israel have sent thousands of men across its borders in a violation of the internationally recognized boundaries of the Jewish state. While Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called this influx an invasion, a variety of United Nations officials defended the infiltrators as innocent “demonstrators.” International law has a clear answer to the question who is right.

    For this is not the first time in modern Middle Eastern affairs that an Arab autocracy has used massive marches of nominally civilian personnel to invade and undermine a neighboring state. In the past, such attempts have been denounced by the international community for what they are: a use of force against the territory of another state in violation of the U.N. Charter. International law is based on practical precedents, on the way given actions were legally judged by the world community in the past. It is a testament to the selective use of international law in the case of Israel that Morocco’s “Green March” into Western Sahara, by far the closest parallel to this week’s events, has not even been mentioned by world leaders.

    And in a report linked by William Jacobson from the The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center,

    The interim [through April 25] findings of the ITIC analysis revealed that 32 of the 40 Palestinians killed (80%) were terrorist operatives or individuals affiliated with them, distributed as follows:

    ♦ 18 of the 32 (about 56%) were terrorist operatives belonging to or affiliated with Hamas:

    ♦ Nine were operatives in Hamas’ military wing (the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades) and operatives in Hamas’ security forces.

    ♦ Nine were affiliated with or linked to Hamas, based on circumstantial evidence (Hamas issued death notices for them, their bodies were wrapped in Hamas flags, or other supporting evidence).

    ♦ Ten were members of Fatah, two of them operatives in its military wing and eight with organizational affiliation or connections.[3]

    ♦ Two belonged to the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), one to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), one to Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

    And since the report, a “Palestinian journalist” has been identified as another member of PFLP.

    As Jacobson notes

    The so-called Great March of Return held every Friday for the past four weeks at the Gaza-Israel border is falsely portrayed as a peaceful civilian protest by groups like Amnesty International. That false designation has led to claims that Israel is violating international law by using live fire against “protesters” who approach the border fence.

    In fact, as we have documented weekly, the “protests” are actually military operations by Hamas and other terror groups using civilian protests as cover.

    • #20
  21. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Believing Obama would sell out Israel isn’t hard for me. But what did he sell them out for?

    A multipolar Middle East where all the poles are at peace with the US and therefore with reduced space for Russian Great Gamery seems like something that would be in the US national interest.

    A multipolar Middle East with a nuclear armed Iran a few years down the road will be so peaceful. Well, except for the part where Iran has (depending on who you listen to) either been cheating on the agreement or not cheating on the agreement because (depending on your biases) Obama either got snookered into a deal with lots of lovely loopholes for Iran to take advantage of or he sold out America.

    I really like the way the pallets of cash which are now fungibly in the hands of the IRGC are helping Iran multipolarize its way deeper into Syria to establish bases on Israel’s eastern border to bookend the money the IRGC now has for Hezbollah in the north.

    And I love the way the Iranian deal led to Iran staying bought and pulling in its horns. Well, except for the part where Iranian Great Gamery is now expanding in the USA’s back yard funded by that IRGC cash. Wasn’t that deal supposed to make Iran peaceful? Not that any of the OTMs coming across the un-wall are Farsi speaking men of military age or anything. Oh. Wait.

    And that’s not to mention Erdogan, who is looking increasingly neo–Ottoman these days. But not to worry, I guess. Before Erdogan gets too annoying the Iranians will have their nukes and can expand their hegemony under the nuclear umbrella; that’s a win-win for the mullah’s who will then be the indispensably bribable custodians of the nukes, which will probably make them safe at home no matter how disgruntled people get.

    Its a good thing they Iran hasn’t gotten any infusions of cash;  that might have helped them go on illegally developing ballistic missiles that can reach Europe or be container launched from ships, or from some of Hezbollah’s bases in South and Central America.

    Besides, we don’t have to worry about a couple of Iranian nukes. The US electrical grid really truly will be hardened against EMP attack by the time Iran is able to pull off an attack like that. Right?

    Thanks, Barry. Love ya.


    But wait, there’s more: Wasn’t it Obama’s fecklessness in Syria just as things were getting back on an even keel after Bush’s missteps that opened the door to Russia’s getting back into the Middle East, starting to pick up some of its old weapons customers/beta testers and so on?

    • #21
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    And I love the way the Iranian deal led to Iran staying bought and pulling in its horns.

    Interesting take here:

    For all of the drama surrounding Trump’s decision to decertify Iranian compliance with the deal, there’s little doubt that Iran is complying. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said so nine times. America’s European allies have said so. So has Trump’s own defense secretary, James Mattis. This very month, Trump’s State Department issued a report declaring that “Iran continued to fulfill its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” …

    The more interesting question isn’t whether Iran has been complying with the nuclear deal. It’s whether America has…..The deal doesn’t only require the United States to lift nuclear sanctions. It requires the United States not to inhibit Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. Section 26 commits the U.S. (and its allies) “to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified” in the deal. Section 29 commits the U.S. and Europe to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Section 33 commits them to “agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.”

    The Trump administration has likely been violating these clauses. The Washington Post reported that at a NATO summit last May, “Trump tried to persuade European partners to stop making trade and business deals with Iran.” Then, in July, Trump’s director of legislative affairs boasted that at a G20 summit in Germany, Trump had “underscored the need for nations … to stop doing business with nations that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran.” Both of these lobbying efforts appear to violate America’s pledge to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.

    The Trump administration may have committed other violations as well….

    Which is food for thought.  As is:

    Uzi Arad, the former head of research at the Mossad and the head of Netanyahu’s own National Security Council from 2009 to 2011….remains convinced that the agreement served Israel’s interest…[and] he remains skeptical of Netanyahu’s campaign against it…

    …the pragmatism embodied in the J.C.P.O.A. explains why…so many Israeli security professionals favor preserving it…Uzi Eilam, the former director of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission; Isaac Ben-Israel, the chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and the National Council for Research and Development; Ariel Levite, the former deputy director-general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission; Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad; Amos Yadlin, the former head of the Israel Defense Forces’ Military Intelligence Directorate; Ehud Barak, the former Chief of General Staff (and Prime Minister); Gadi Eizenkot, the Chief of General Staff of the I.D.F.; and many others.

    • #22
  23. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    To look at the Atlantic essays, I’d have to unblock my browser from blocking ads and I don’t want to bother in order to read the Atlantic.

    The excerpts you posted though make it clear that the deal is criminally terrible for the United State. President Obama refused to allow the Senate to debate and vote on this terrible deal that requires (requires!) that the US 

    not … inhibit Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. Section 26 commits the U.S. (and its allies) “to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified” in the deal. Section 29 commits the U.S. and Europe to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Section 33 commits them to “agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.”

    Simply terrible.

    • #23
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    The excerpts you posted though make it clear that the deal is criminally terrible for the United State. President Obama refused to allow the Senate to debate and vote on this terrible deal that requires (requires!) that the US

    not … inhibit Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. Section 26 commits the U.S. (and its allies) “to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified” in the deal. Section 29 commits the U.S. and Europe to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Section 33 commits them to “agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.”

    Simply terrible.

    I don’t see it.

    At the end of the day the deal specified that the US couldn’t undermine the value of sanctions relief in exchange for Iran ceasing its nuclear program. 

    Because without that undertaking sanctions relief is….of limited value.  Right?  Clearly the US didn’t trust Iran – hence all that checking – but Iran didn’t trust the US to keep its word either – and perhaps they were justified?

    I don’t know that reduced credibility is a good thing when it comes to making deals – for anybody.

     

     

     

    • #24
  25. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    What I see is that President Obama signing an international agreement that binds the United States to anything without seeking the approval of the United States Senate as required by the United States Constitution is a Bad Thing.

    The actual details of the agreement only cement that fact.

    • #25
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Point : – )

    • #26
  27. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Point : – )

    You know how to warm my little heart… thanks…

    • #27
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    but I heard on talk radio today that Ben Rhodes was feeding the media their stories during the time the agreement was being negotiated, so they’d put just the right slant on things. I couldn’t believe he was admitting it. If it wasn’t Rhodes, I’m sure it was someone from Obama’s administration. But none of us are surprised.

    No, that’s all true. It was Rhodes. He bragged about it back then.

    And see also this:

    Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal

    Who was duped? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see it was a dangerous sham.

    LOL

    http://ricochet.com/archives/dumping-iran-nuclear-deal-terrible-idea/

     

    • #28
  29. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Listen to VDH interviews this month, he seems to be saying, the goal should be to bring the Mullahs down and we can use their violation of the agreement to move in that direction without explicitly stating the goal or ending the agreement.  Violating that agreement provides leverage to reinstate the sanctions, which must be universally followed or they have no real impact.  I may be projecting on him because bringing the Mullahs down should always have been our central goal and while Obama has made that extremely more difficult, it should remain our goal as it is the only way to end the threat they pose to everyone on all fronts.

    • #29
  30. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    After all the lies with Obamacare, why would anyone be surprised that the Iran deal is equally bad and built on lies?

    Europe wants to trade with Iran. The US should impose complete sanctions on Iran and sanction any country that continues to trade with Iran. The Europeans should not be allowed to have it both ways.

    Our policy should recognize that we are poison in the ME and should do things only indirectly. There are those (e.g., the Kurds) who will gladly accept help and are in a position, willing and capable of doing great harm to our mutual enemies.

    Our goal for Iran should be about tumbling the Iranian government but allowing Iranians to tumble it. The Mullahs are corrupt, stupid and unpopular. Iranians are desperately poor as a result of the policies the Mullahs have chosen. Foreign wars and building an atomic bomb while everyday Iranians are poor is not something Iranians like.

    As part of the policy, we should make it as expensive as possible on Iran to continue its aggression throughout the Middle East by arming their enemies and those who would resist them. Dead Iranian Guards are an entirely unmitigated good. Everyone that dies outside Iran is one less to fend off toppling of the government. Iran is in overstretch and make the government pay for it.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.