The Iran Deal: Choosing Sides

 

194308Geraldo 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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 64 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dean Masters Inactive
    Dean Masters
    @DeanMasters

    Amen!

    • #1
  2. user_1050 Member
    user_1050
    @MattBartle

    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.

    • #2
  3. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    As on most issues, I’m with Mona.

    • #3
  4. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    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.

    • #4
  5. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    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.

    • #5
  6. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    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.

    • #6
  7. danys Thatcher
    danys
    @danys

    I’m with Mona. The current Iranian government is not to be trusted.

    • #7
  8. user_656019 Coolidge
    user_656019
    @RayKujawa

    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.

    • #8
  9. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Let’s see….

    • Inspections?  Nope.
    • Centrifuges go away?  Nope.
    • Research on centrifuges and on isotope production stopped?  Nope.
    • Ballistic missile research stopped?  Nope.
    • Money for expanded research?  Yup.
    • Money for expanded funding of terrorists?  Yup.
    • Good will toward Israel?  Nope.

    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

    • #9
  10. user_989554 Inactive
    user_989554
    @MattWood

    Eric Hines: Let’s see…. Inspections?  Nope.

    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?

    • #10
  11. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Too bad, we are moving forward. This is not an existential threat to Israel or any place else. This is the future.

    If nuclear weapons aren’t an existential threat, then what is?

    • #11
  12. user_989554 Inactive
    user_989554
    @MattWood

    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?

    • #12
  13. Giaccomo Member
    Giaccomo
    @Giaccomo

    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.

    • #13
  14. user_891102 Member
    user_891102
    @DannyAlexander

    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

    • #14
  15. Retail Lawyer Member
    Retail Lawyer
    @RetailLawyer

    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!

    • #15
  16. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Matt Wood:

    Eric Hines: Let’s see…. Inspections? Nope.

    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?

    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

    • #16
  17. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    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?

    • #17
  18. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Matt Wood: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?

    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.

    • #18
  19. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    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.

    • #19
  20. user_891102 Member
    user_891102
    @DannyAlexander

    #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/

    • #20
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    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?”

    • #21
  22. user_529732 Inactive
    user_529732
    @ShelleyNolan

    I’m with Mona, it is a betrayal. This deal can not be allowed to stand. We must show Congress how we feel.

    • #22
  23. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Not for nothing, but is there any deal they could’ve worked out where conservatives wouldn’t call Obama “Neville Chamberlain”?

    • #23
  24. user_989554 Inactive
    user_989554
    @MattWood

    ctlaw:

    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.

    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…

    • #24
  25. George Savage Contributor
    George Savage
    @GeorgeSavage

    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.

    • #25
  26. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Not for nothing, but is there any deal they could’ve worked out where conservatives wouldn’t call Obama “Neville Chamberlain”?

    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.

    • #26
  27. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Fred Cole:Not for nothing, but is there any deal they could’ve worked out where conservatives wouldn’t call Obama “Neville Chamberlain”?

    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.

    • #27
  28. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    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.

    • #28
  29. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    @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.”

    • #29
  30. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Ryan M:@Fred, of course there is. But the point is that he didn’t, and he likely wouldn’t.

    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.

    Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.”

    Yes, yes, I know the context is more nuanced.

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