on the iran deal

[OldDog]

It's a lousy deal. And it's not just Reps who have sincere, legitimate doubts about it.

Bad deal vs. war? Nonsense. Keep the sanctions in place, even increase them. The only hope for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to use them to threaten the US is regime change. This deal certainly doesn't do it. It releases $100+billion to the mullahs on the front end. Asked about that money being spent arming Hezbollah, arming Bashr al-Assad, etc., the President said

I think it is a mistake to — to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and — and — and roads and — and paying down debt. We think that they have to do some of that, because Rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of Iran. That economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions.

which is why we should keep them in place. Perhaps the State Department's time might have been better spent working with allies to maintain sanctions, rather than working with Iran to end them. Instead, Iran's access to these funds enable it to grow stronger, support Hezbollah and wreak more havoc in the region. For what, exactly? Any time, any place verifications, which just three months ago were a non-negotiable part of the deal? No, and now the Administration denies that they ever were part of the deal. Once Iran has this money, it can't be recalled, no matter how Iran cheats on the deal. And once the sanctions relief is deemed sufficient for the mullahs to stay in power, they can simply walk away from the agreement.

Perhaps this is why Reps and many Dems have expressed skepticism about the deal.

[GenuineRisk]

Thank you for posting that, Steve- you're right, it's a terrific article and very concisely pokes holes in all the neocon usual arguments- maintain sanctions! Increase sanctions! Threaten with military strength!

I just don't understand, so recently after Iraq, why so many are so willing to make exactly the same mistakes over again.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It's a lousy deal. And it's not just Reps who have sincere, legitimate doubts about it.

Bad deal vs. war? Nonsense. Keep the sanctions in place, even increase them. The only hope for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to use them to threaten the US is regime change. This deal certainly doesn't do it. It releases $100+billion to the mullahs on the front end. Asked about that money being spent arming Hezbollah, arming Bashr al-Assad, etc., the President said



which is why we should keep them in place. Perhaps the State Department's time might have been better spent working with allies to maintain sanctions, rather than working with Iran to end them. Instead, Iran's access to these funds enable it to grow stronger, support Hezbollah and wreak more havoc in the region. For what, exactly? Any time, any place verifications, which just three months ago were a non-negotiable part of the deal? No, and now the Administration denies that they ever were part of the deal. Once Iran has this money, it can't be recalled, no matter how Iran cheats on the deal. And once the sanctions relief is deemed sufficient for the mullahs to stay in power, they can simply walk away from the agreement.

Perhaps this is why Reps and many Dems have expressed skepticism about the deal.

You are exactly right. This is a terrible deal on all levels. This deal (which will free up a couple of hundred billion dollars for Iran) will make it far easier for Iran to not only get nuclear weapons, but to wreak havoc in the region. That is why all the countries that fear Iran are against this deal. If this deal truly made it harder for Iran to get nuclear weapons, countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel would be happy about the deal. They are not happy. They are very upset.

Obama has managed to alienate practically all of our allies in the region. And for what? Does this even win us any points with Iran? No, they still hate us. They won't even release the American hostages that they are holding. It is amazing that Obama would give Iran this incredible deal without even demanding that the hostages be released. That should have been an absolute necessity before any concessions were made.

As you said, opposition to this deal is not strictly partisan. There will be plenty of democrats against this deal. I think it will be a close call as to whether Congress can get a 2/3rd majority opposition to this deal to override Obama's veto. I'm not predicting that they will get the 2/3rd majority, but I think it will be close.

This whole thing will end up just like the deal we made with North Korea. Does anyone think you can trust either Iran or North Korea?

When you are dealing with a bad person or a bad country, I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to engage them or that you shouldn't try to improve relations with that person or country. But when you are more powerful and you are coming from a position of strength, you can ask to see actions first. You don't make all these concessions before seeing any change in behavior.

If we had a strong leader, he would demand that Iran release the American hostages, demand that Iran stop supporting terrorism, stop calling for the destruction of Israel, etc. You don't just drop the sanctions when there has not only been no change in behavior, but not even a promise of a change in behavior. We are the ones in the position of strength, not Iran. If Iran doesn't change their behavior, then we shouldn't lift the sanctions. We should make it clear to them that the ball is in their court and we want to work with them, but we need to see a change in behavior. Why would we want to make a deal that will give them hundreds of billions of dollars that they will probably end up using to wreak havoc in the region?