Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Iran Deal: Choosing Sides
Geraldo Rivera on Fox Business just now, rebuking critics of the Iran deal:
Too bad, we are moving forward. This is not an existential threat to Israel or any place else. This is the future.
On Facebook, our own Mona Charen:
This is a shameful, terrible day for our country. President Obama and his party are the Neville Chamberlains of our time. Every American should call and write his congressman and senators to urge a veto override. This is the worst betrayal of this country one can imagine. It would be treason if committed by someone other than the president.
I’m with Mona.
You?
Published in Foreign Policy, General
Amen!
It’s a fine deal as long as you believe that Iran is an honest partner and won’t find anything bad to do with 100 billion dollars.
Mona for the win.
As on most issues, I’m with Mona.
ok… well, if I knew nothing else and you asked me to choose between Geraldo Rivera and Mona Charen, what do you think I would say?
I haven’t looked at the deal, yet, but right now the people I trust are outraged and the people I don’t trust are saying it’s fine. So, I’m skeptical as an educated guess for the time being.
I just saw an Iranian guy on BBC Newsnight make it pretty clear they would continue to support Hamas and Hezbollah. They can certainly afford to now! A consequential President indeed.
The EU shouldn’t be let off the hook either.
Stacking the deck Peter?
But no, of course Mona is on the right side of history, as a certain president likes to say.
It’s possible wiser heads will prevail and Iran will not nuke the U.S., the Kurds, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Isreal or provide a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group to do the same but that’s not a possibility I would want to be responsible for.
I’m with Mona. The current Iranian government is not to be trusted.
Can we now start pressuring them on their support of terrorism? That subject was outside the boundaries of the agreement, but now it’s time to start negotiations on the subject of acting like a civilized nation and ceasing support for terrorism.
Let’s see….
What a legacy Obama has fought for so much.
What an idiot is Rivera.
At least it’s not a treaty, and the next President can cancel it with the stroke of a pen. Getting sanctions reimposed will be a different matter.
Eric Hines
Is that right? I know never to take Kerry’s words at face value, but we will have recourse to token inspections, no? Albeit not spontaneous whenever we want inspections?
If nuclear weapons aren’t an existential threat, then what is?
What is the understanding of what happens at the 10 and 15 year benchmarks?
Do we seek new agreements, or is there a tacit understanding that if a nuke pops up at year 16 we have no right to object to it?
Contemplating John Kerry’s future Nobel Peace Prize, I am minded of that wonderful quote from ‘A Man for All Seasons.’ “Why (John), it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but for (the Peace Prize)?”
Vanity, perfidy, and treachery on the part of this Administration, and unbelievable stupidity on the part of the electorate. These narcissistic clowns have just made war more, not less likely.
I said it on Claire’s thread about the Iran deal, and I’ll take the liberty of repeating it here:
Not only must the US Congress crush this deal — it must also begin impeachment proceedings against Obama for willful violation of the “take care” clause of the Constitution.
I would urge as many of you as are willing to press this matter on your elected representatives.
The US is a guarantor of the NPT, and the US Senate gets its Constitutional prerogative to approve or reject treaties (e.g., the NPT) at least in part because treaties entail either changes to existing US law, additions to the same, or a combination of the two.
Hence my designation of the Obama-proffered poison chalice as a willful violation of the “take care” clause. The furor over the Iran deal is not only (although it is of course chiefly) a policy-differences matter, it is a matter of the deal representing just one “take care” clause-violation too many, where lives are literally at stake.
Anyone who rhapsodized about Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (and to a certain extent Roberts) in their Constitutional-procedure-centered takedowns of Obergefell vs. Hodges *must* accordingly take up the cudgel and sound the tocsin in this case. Obama has moved from malevolent threats to property, up to threats against liberty, and is now capping things off with a threat to life.
See here:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/191479/obama-iran-nonproliferation
If somebody says they are going to kill you, and repeats it weekly, does not the prudent person believe them?
The PBS Newshour had the repeat liar, Susan Rice, and convicted thief of national secrets, Sandy Berger, defending the deal, so it must be terrific, right? I did not actually listen because I felt insulted that both the White House and PBS would offer up known liars and criminals to defend it. How stupid do they think we are?
Too bad indeed!
Token = none. IAEA gets to ask pretty please, Iran gets to say no, and then the thing enters a series of arbitrations, each step of which lasts weeks, and on each panel of which Iran has a seat.
Eric Hines
1. Nothing I can do about it. Heck, may as well take up smoking again b/c at my age I doubt that’ll get me before the EMP from a rogue nuke shuts everything down.
2. Why does anyone give a **** what Geraldo says?
Those benchmarks are misdirection.
The whole point of this is to get Iran over the hump (of being vulnerable to attack by not having a credible deterrent) and put Iran in a massive breakout position in a much smaller interval than those benchmarks, say 4 or 5 years.
Those 4 or 5 years buy them development of a potent MRBM and ICBM capability. It also allows them to build a modest nuclear arsenal of say 40+ warheads just from the hidden portions of their program. Thereafter, they toss the deal and turn the visible portions of their program into full production mode. By year 7 or 8, they surpass the arsenals of all but China, Russia, and the US. Given the difficulty in reversing the downward trend in our arsenal, by year 10 they have the world’s 3rd largest nuclear arsenal after China and Russia.
I’ve yet to see any adequate explanation why this is a good deal for the U.S. As Syria and Iran are crowing about it, I’d say that’s an indicator that it is not.
As our own anonymous – my near-namesake – has pointed out, Iran doesn’t need nuclear power, and even if it did, it wouldn’t need centrifuges. Therefore, any deal with the number of permitted centrifuges being greater than zero is a bad deal.
#10 Matt Wood
Here’s some info on what Obama/Kerry are proposing as the logistics:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/6-major-u.s.-concessions-in-iran-deal/article/2568247
And more here:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-deal-silent-on-irans-parchin-military-plant-bushehr/
Some more info/insight — plus an unbelievably salient point made about the relative efficacy of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities versus approving this agreement (Hint: Given the sudden, recent rash of declarations by the POTUS and his minions that Iran’s breakout time to getting a nuke was under 3 months, pre-deal, then we might as well have bombed Iran anyway, given that bombing would have the same technical setback effect on the Iranian program *and* establish credible go-forward deterrence and leverage…):
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/14/senior-admin-official-on-second-thought-anytime-anywhere-inspections-for-iran-were-never-realistic/
Is there some credible public figure who can ask, “How, precisely, are we to distinguish this President and his administration from enemies of the United States?”
Or, maybe more simply, “Whose side are they on anyway?”
I’m with Mona, it is a betrayal. This deal can not be allowed to stand. We must show Congress how we feel.
Not for nothing, but is there any deal they could’ve worked out where conservatives wouldn’t call Obama “Neville Chamberlain”?
Do you think they buy that capability off the shelf or do you think they’re gonna develop internally? Or combo?
Following pulled from the actual agreement:
“72. For 15 years, the Natanz enrichment site will be the sole location for all of Iran’s uranium enrichment related activities including safeguarded R&D.”
Are you saying that basically they will cheat on this and achieve some critical mass of uranium at some site unaccounted for in the agreement?
I get a strong sense that the agreement is b.s. but I do wanna know exactly what caliber b.s…
Mona is the sensible adult here, as always. However, make no mistake: The Iranian nuclear deal is a bipartisan debacle in that congressional Republicans preemptively ceded the treaty power to President Obama.
If congressional leadership had not passed Senator Corker’s Iran Nuclear Review Act, the Senate could now put the President’s shiny new legacy achievement up for a vote as a treaty, and a two-thirds majority not being realized, declare it non-binding on the United States government.
But our congressional leaders haven’t the stomach for a fight–any fight–with Barack Obama on a matter of substance.
Today we are left with an inversion of the constitutional process: Instead of Barack Obama needing the assent of two-thirds of senators present, opponents must muster two-thirds of both houses of Congress to stop our Sovereign from once again imposing His will.
Prepare for weeks of full-on Republican hand-wringing over this latest example of self-imposed impotence.
One where Iran ceased to enrich, surrendered all of its centrifuges, placed all of its enriched uranium under control of the IAEA, ceased all development of ballistic missiles, and allowed no notice inspection of all nuclear facilities.
Sometimes no deal is better than a bad deal.
But then, you have to think allowing Iran to legally develop a nuclear weapon a decade from now after we sell them ballistic missiles 8 years from now is a bad idea to call this a bad deal.
Should we even call this a deal?
Usually. a deal implies that each party received some benefit. I don’t see how the U.S. benefits at all.
@Fred, of course there is. But the point is that he didn’t, and he likely wouldn’t. That isn’t on us, it’s on Obama. If the point you’re making is that conservatives hate Obama so much that even if he did something we like we’d still complain on principle, that’s not much different from the charge that conservatives are motivated by racism. That is simply false. And I don’t see how appropriate the question is, but as a distraction, when the deal really is objectively bad.
If you punch me in the face and I’m mad, and you respond by saying “you’d still hate me even if I kissed you,” you’re not making much of a point. The response is still “OK, but you didn’t kiss me, you punched me.”
I think anybody could have gotten a better deal than Obama. Heck, the French would have held out for a better deal. It is embarrassing to have the Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey of France be tougher negotiators than the President of the United States.
I came across this Orwell quote when looking for something else.
Yes, yes, I know the context is more nuanced.