Iran deal is reached
We knew it was coming. We’ve known it for a long, long time.
So here it is (lots of articles and reactions at the link).
These are my initial thoughts (I plan to write more a bit later in the day):
(1) From what I’ve read, the administration has backed off from many of even the minimal guarantees and checks it initially swore it would have in place. And although this is no surprise whatsoever, it is still shocking (that sentence is something I could say about the entire deal).
(2) I checked a liberal blog, HuffPo, to see the reaction there. I found the usual combination of jubilation and mockery of the conservative reaction and of Netanyahu. I’ll take this as typical. I assume there are some Scoop Jackson Democrats left in the world (after all, there are a few in Congress, such as Menendez), but I certainly didn’t see them there.
(3) I haven’t read much about what caused other countries such as France, which I seem to recall was raising some objections, to issue its approval. But here’s an interesting article from a different perspective—Agence France-Presse—that describes some of the international hurdles ahead in its implementation.
(4) I agree with this at Patterico:
Basically, we caved in every single aspect of the negotiations. Iran will get in excess of $150,000,000,000 in sanctions relief. Although the Liar in Chief says we get anytime anywhere inspections, that is not even remotely hinted at in the information released, as Iran can veto and deny access, and appeal to a panel, dragging this out for weeks and months. Iran can sell their oil on the world market, which will give them even more cash to fund their terrorist proxies throughout the region.
All this does is delay Iran getting full nuclear capability until someone else is in office.
Their legacy achievement is that we have basically given up on the region, and abandoned our partners in the region.
(5) If you think my affect is calm, it really isn’t. But this news is in the nature of hearing that someone who’s been on life support for several years has died. There was virtually no doubt that Obama would do whatever it took to get a “deal.” If one side is prepared to capitulate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and the only question is exactly what will be given up.
(6) Should the US put itself on the terrorist list, now that we’re funding terrorist organizations?
[NOTE: I plan to write another post today on the political ramifications and possible reactions from Congress.]
This is bad. But it was, given Obama, utterly predictable.
We’re back to duck and cover.
It would take an experienced gastro-intestinal guy to calculate how much my lib relations and friends are going to be able to/have to swallow that they never saw coming in order to justify to themselves voting for Obama. There is nothing Obama could do that would be so horrid for the country that they’d be concerned. If Obama screws us, or did, then the result is what we should have been wishing for anyway.
Last week I heard from a family member living in Paris, when he he asked his driver about military protection he noticed, that the building in question was a synagogue. When we visited in 1996, we went to the Mémorial des Martyrs de la Déportation, above which is stated, “Forgive, but never forget”. I am amazed at how much “forgetting” has occurred in our western culture. In our own country, the Gramscian March has done its work to bring up a generation that is utterly ignorant of the truth of totalitarian history and its effects.
1. The $150b is to Iran’s economy is the same as $8T to the U.S. economy. Talk about stimulus!
2. Ron Dermer: The ICBMs are for us.
3. This must not stand, but since Obama has already played the veto card our fate depends on a few Dem Senators. Considering how the Dems vote in blocks, I’m not optimistic.
“Scoop Jackson Democrats left in the world (after all, there are a few in Congress, such as Menendez),”
Nah, except for a few in zoos like Congress, they have all been hunted to extinction.
Frankly, this is more of “If you like ….”
Obama has zero credibility.
Devastating.
I would add:
7) Obama *didn’t* insist on the release of the 4 Americans currently held by Iran as part of the deal.
Obama seems only interested in retrieving traitors like Bowie Bergdahl.
This practically ensures that the next large-scale military action in the Middle East will be nuclear in nature. As for Obama – words fail me.
For an inspector’s-eye view of the situation, I recommend Charles Duelfer’s blog:
http://www.charlesduelfer.com/blog/
Duelfer, of course, is the same Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report. He was also an acting chair of UNSCOM, the UNSCR 687 mandated “special commission” that preceded UNMOVIC.
Duelfer was against invading Iraq, just as he was against Clinton bombing Iraq, but in contrast to most OIF opponents, Duelfer is also clear that Iraq breached the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 throughout the Gulf War ceasefire period.
Duelfer is critical of the Iran negotiations. He hasn’t reacted to the latest news yet on his blog, but reading his blog posts on the subject is informative.
Highlander,
Obama has consistently acted to Iran’s advantage from the outset. US mute on Green Revolution. US disengagement from Iraq. US backing down with Syria. Greater involvement by Iran in Afghanistan.
Did people really think the Demoncrats were going to allow leaders like Bush and patriotic American soldiers, to pass along freedom to a new generation?
They were always planning to betray you, they were always planning to end freedom now and across the globe.
Keep in mind that France, China, and especially Russia were offenders in Iraq’s noncompliance with disarmament mandates. I don’t recall whether Germany helped Iraq violate the terms of ceasefire, too.
International law is murky to begin with, but I wonder how the ‘5+1’ configuration of the negotiations relates to United Nations-housed conventions on non-proliferation. They were a prominent feature of the UN-mandated Iraq disarmament standard that was enforced under US law by HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush.
I wonder whether removing the Iran negotiation from UN auspices was a way to go around the non-proliferation conventions.
Ymarsakar,
The course with Iran that Bush handed to Obama was to continue developing Iraq as a strategic partner, strict sanctions, and promote civil reform in Iran. That didn’t preclude negotiating with Iran, but the conditions would provide valuable leverage to hold Iran to a sufficient standard of disarmament.
In the preconditions to the Iran negotiations, however, Obama reversed course on all 3 pillars.
In the preconditions to the Iran negotiations, however, Obama reversed course on all 3 pillars.
An Executive has that choice. People’s opinions don’t actually matter. They mattered to Bush, so Bush often mercifully caved on things to allow other people to get their way. There’s inherent to the power of the Presidency, that requires this, however. It’s merely an agreement on self limitations.
The course with Iran that Bush handed to Obama was to continue developing Iraq as a strategic partner, strict sanctions, and promote civil reform in Iran.
Did you really think the Democrats after being handed power, would do that? The Democrats sabotaged Iraq and Vietnam, and you think they were going to continue Bush’s strategy in the ME?
Did someone say Duck-and-Cover?
Obama will go down in history as America’s most consequential president. And, he’s soooo dreamy, too. It is almost unbearable.
KLSmith:
It’s also interesting to note that there are still people who think he’s a bumbling idiot. I maintain, and have pretty much always maintained, that he is a very clever strategist and tactician who is doing exactly what he has long, long planned to do.
That’s not to say he’s doing it alone. But he’s doing it.
Try this on for size. Obama did this deal so Apple can sell iPhones in Iran.
Think about it.
Hillary would. Why not Barack?
Cornhead:
Obama has bigger goals than that. That would be a secondary plus, but it’s not primary for him. It would be more primary for Hillary.
A small distinction, to be sure.
CNN Internation had guest on who were rather supportive of the deal. Of course, one was a member of some American Iranian advocacy group. The other was a guy who had written a book about Teheran.
The German ZDF station talked with foreign minister Steinmeier, who was happy that negotiations had finally succeeded. There was all an industry rep who was talking about what the deal would mean in terms of exports for Germany. The latter is why I can’t stand when Germans play the moral superiority game with us.
Obama is playinging the community organizer again.Identify a problem; step in and heat up the troops; then leave before you have to deal with the aftermath.
Qui est surpris? Perhaps dear leader will receive a new nobel peace prize and the keys to orthanc for such wonderful work in the name of the prophet. (Soros already occupies barad-dur.)
A long way from J. Kennedy’s; “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” ; isn’t it?
How sad that each generation must be reminded anew of the dangers of weakness and pacifism.
Should the US put itself on the terrorist list, now that we’re funding terrorist organizations?
Well, I have been saying for the last few years that the United States has changed sides in the “War on Terror”.
For years, I’ve been saying that Obama’s capitulation to Iran would mean that Iran would not just develop nuclear weapons, but that they’d quickly use them against the Saudis. Iran wants to be the sole regional nuclear power. They don’t want to wait for the Saudis to also develop nuclear weapons.
Recently, however, I’ve been told that my fears won’t come to pass, because the Saudis already have a deal with the Pakistanis, who’ll supply nuclear weapons as soon as Iran becomes a threat. When is that? This year? Next year? I don’t know.
At any rate, Obama now has us looking at a Mideast arms race as the best-case scenario.
America is a danger to world peace and stability. Eventually American allies will figure that out and drop us, like radioactive coals.
It’s also why people are anti American if they are nationalistic, rather than Leftist. They don’t like depending on American power, since it can easily corrupt that power and enslave the client and smaller countries underneath it.
America was given the title of superpower and the obedience of lesser nations because America’s interest in world peace and justice forced the deal, if only to balance Russia or China.
Now what will world actors think and act?
Pingback:My thoughts on the Iranian deal | American Patriot | American Patriot