|A Deal With The 'Devil'|
Thinking Things Over
|By Jerry E. Clark|
July 14, 2015 -
Earlier today, President Obama announced that negotiators had reached a deal with the Iranian regime which allegedly will stem its nuclear activities and one which gives the world a sigh of relief about that country's intentions to produce a bomb.
I don't believe the deal achieves either of those goals.
The devil is in the details, wise men and women know. And when it comes to Iran, cheating is the normal mode of operation. Without the notification of its secret nuclear sites via information from an Iranian opposition group, the world never would have known that Iran had established several subterranean facilities and had garnered key technology, whose clear goal was nuclear weapons production. The sham of acquiring nuclear technology for purely peaceful and local energy purposes was a complete joke, but was and remains the Iranian talking point on the entire nuclear subject.
Do not forget that Iran's supreme leader has held multiple public events at which he denounced both the United States and Israel in the strongest possible terms. The Obama administration has laughed all this off, claiming that these sessions were purely for Iranian domestic consumption. History is replete with examples of dictatorial regimes making such extreme comments and then later acting in the same direction as those public statements. Why anybody would believe that such comments shouldn't be taken seriously is beyond me. When the Iranian regime claims that its goal is to eliminate Israel, it's sheer lunacy not to take such a statement seriously - yet that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing.
When it comes to inspections, the details of the agreement allow Iran to have a 24 day notice about any given request before the site examination may take place. In the best of circumstances, that kind of a delay probably would end up being insufficient. Few believe that an inspection denial would invoke a combined effort on the part of the United States and its allies to cancel the whole deal. Iran, therefore, has plenty of time to move this or that in an effort to evade detection of covert activities.
There are many timelines for various nuclear-related activities to restart or least not be prevented. Delaying a nuclear bomb for Iran over the course of a year or even ten years does not give Israel much solace. What it means is that the path to a bomb now has been enshrined in a document approved by several of the world's greatest and most powerful countries. It could virtually be a path to nuclear war, with most observers believing that once Israel knows for sure that Iran has the bomb, an attack on its key facilities would only be days off. It would be a desperate act, but one which the Israelis have clearly signaled would happen in an effort to preserve its nation.
The proposed agreement's 100 plus pages contain many details, the implementation of which must be trusted to the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog agency. That agency does not have the full support of many members of Congress, having had severe inspection problems in the past. And yet, key aspects of this deal would be fully entrusted to it.
Congress will have to muster a 2/3 majority to block this deal. That probably won't happen due to the number of Democrats committed to the support of the Obama administration.
So, it may be up to the next president to either cancel it or amend it after taking office - either action would cause a huge, international uproar.
It appears that the world has not just become safer, but has now made yet another capitulation to a terrorist-supporting regime.
Making a deal with the "devil", one which has caused innumerable problems in the Middle East since before 1979, seems at first, practical. But it is a prescription for long term disaster. It's one we cannot afford and worse, one the world cannot afford.
(I am not among those who believe that President Obama was wrong to negotiate with the Iranians - in fact, quite the opposite. He believes that the only alternative to making concessions with them in order to get a deal - is war. That's where we disagree. The best alternative would have been a far, far tougher stance again ALL Iranian nuclear activity and the advocacy of even stronger economic and other sanctions. Yes, there may have to have been some kind of activity to shut down their centrifuges, but that does not mean an all-out war in my view.
Previous presidents failed to do ANYTHING about Iranian nuclear activity - at least Mr. Obama made an effort in this regard.)