Ramifications of the Iran Deal

Regarding the Iranian nuclear deal, some Democrats are singing “Kumbaya”. Even when Iran at the last minute added more stipulations, the U.S. delegation and President Obama never walked away. American Thinker asked national security experts to weigh in on the other consequences of the deal.

Those opposing the deal are accused of being “warmongers” by the Obama Administration. If anything the president could be called a “warmonger” for agreeing to such an atrocious deal. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on a conference call that President Obama’s argument is outrageous and false, and in actuality “The deal will bring war by sparking a nuclear arms race in the region and will allow Iran to continue its terror and aggression. That will make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all.”

President Obama has argued that the deal should be judged solely on whether it stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yet, critics suggest otherwise pointing to the last-minute additions of an end to the arms embargo in five years, and an end to the missile restrictions in eight years. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden emphasized that the U.S. should have held the line on the provisions of ballistic missiles and conventional arms. Lt. General Michael T. Flynn summarized the feelings of those interviewed, “We were told that they did not talk about terrorism, missiles, or hostages because it is only a nuclear deal. I say to that, baloney.”

Because the sanctions will be lifted and Iran will receive billions of dollars, Hayden is very concerned, “This legitimizes Iran and makes them more empowered with all that money. It gives the Iranians the ability to continue all the other bad things they are doing.  Not only will the Iranians have money to spread terrorism against the U.S. and Israel, but it will also embolden them to suppress any resistance to the government from within.”

Even Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor, as well as the president himself, have said that they do not expect the Iranians to give up their sponsorship of terrorism. Flynn pointed out, “Iranians have yet to apologize for blowing up 283 Marines in Beirut, killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq, and taking hostages, four who still remain. This administration tells us they were not worrying about these other acts, yet are willing to give them nuclear capability. Are we out of our minds? Just the other day the entire Iranian Parliament was chanting death to Israel and America.”

In a recent speech the president compared those opposed to the deal to the hard-line Iranian mullahs. It is interesting that some influential Democrats, Congressmen Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), came out against the deal after this horrific statement. In finding their moral compass, they all uttered the sentiment of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) “But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement… The Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat… Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”

Senator Lindsey Graham told American Thinker that people should understand when the Iranians say they are going to kill Israelis and Americans they should be believed. “Iranians use the opening up of the restrictions on money and weapons to hand-off to the terrorists so they can hit us here at home. This administration should have tied the lifting of the arms embargo and the money to behavior change, not sponsoring terrorism. Even after the deal the Iranian rhetoric is offensive and they get away with it because of this administration’s weakness and incompetency.”

Senator Graham goes on to point out that President Obama’s track record for the Middle East is dismal: withdrawing the troops from Iraq too soon, not helping the free Syrian army against Assad, not enforcing the red line he drew, saying ISIL was part of a JV team, and claiming that Al Qaeda is decimated.  He asks, “At what point do we realize that when it comes to the Middle East President Obama does not know what he is talking about?  He has literally been wrong on everything, including this Iranian deal. This is a complete under estimation and misunderstanding of the threats. Everything this President has done regarding the Middle East policy has blown up in his face.”

There is also the argument by the Democrats that the deal will help to open up Iranian society. Elliott Abrams, an advisor to President George W. Bush, says history has shown no evidence that prosperity opens up countries, citing as examples China and Russia, which have become more autocratic since they have allowed American business into the country. He strongly believes the immense transfer of wealth the Iranians will receive from sanction relief will only go to the regime, not the people. “Just as with the 2009 uprising, the Iranian Green Revolution, their people will be forgotten. It gives the regime more money, weapons, and power to not only export terrorism, but to control its own people. They use brutal tactics to maintain control over the country.”

Former Governor Jeb Bush takes seriously the rhetoric of death to America and Israel, and feels that this agreement should not be based “on the hope that the Iranians behavior will moderate over time.  The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist. This isn’t diplomacy; it is appeasement.”

It is mind-boggling that those same people who cheered the 2009 nuclear deal President Obama made with Russia are also cheering this deal. Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) pointed out to American Thinker that the Sunni nations have already said publicly they will get a nuclear weapon given Iran’s capability, and believes this nuclear deal has set up an arms race in the Middle East.

All interviewed are hoping for a new deal, a better deal, but are not optimistic because the Obama administration has not exhibited strong American leadership.  They would like to see a restructure that includes not giving any money and weapon relief until Iran has a change of behavior and renounces its terrorist ways, not to mention preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capability.  As Michael Hayden noted, “The Iranians remain an apocalyptic messianic regime and at the same time are coldly calculating.”

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Regarding the Iranian nuclear deal, some Democrats are singing “Kumbaya”. Even when Iran at the last minute added more stipulations, the U.S. delegation and President Obama never walked away. American Thinker asked national security experts to weigh in on the other consequences of the deal.

Those opposing the deal are accused of being “warmongers” by the Obama Administration. If anything the president could be called a “warmonger” for agreeing to such an atrocious deal. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on a conference call that President Obama’s argument is outrageous and false, and in actuality “The deal will bring war by sparking a nuclear arms race in the region and will allow Iran to continue its terror and aggression. That will make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all.”

President Obama has argued that the deal should be judged solely on whether it stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yet, critics suggest otherwise pointing to the last-minute additions of an end to the arms embargo in five years, and an end to the missile restrictions in eight years. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden emphasized that the U.S. should have held the line on the provisions of ballistic missiles and conventional arms. Lt. General Michael T. Flynn summarized the feelings of those interviewed, “We were told that they did not talk about terrorism, missiles, or hostages because it is only a nuclear deal. I say to that, baloney.”

Because the sanctions will be lifted and Iran will receive billions of dollars, Hayden is very concerned, “This legitimizes Iran and makes them more empowered with all that money. It gives the Iranians the ability to continue all the other bad things they are doing.  Not only will the Iranians have money to spread terrorism against the U.S. and Israel, but it will also embolden them to suppress any resistance to the government from within.”

Even Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor, as well as the president himself, have said that they do not expect the Iranians to give up their sponsorship of terrorism. Flynn pointed out, “Iranians have yet to apologize for blowing up 283 Marines in Beirut, killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq, and taking hostages, four who still remain. This administration tells us they were not worrying about these other acts, yet are willing to give them nuclear capability. Are we out of our minds? Just the other day the entire Iranian Parliament was chanting death to Israel and America.”

In a recent speech the president compared those opposed to the deal to the hard-line Iranian mullahs. It is interesting that some influential Democrats, Congressmen Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), came out against the deal after this horrific statement. In finding their moral compass, they all uttered the sentiment of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) “But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement… The Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat… Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”

Senator Lindsey Graham told American Thinker that people should understand when the Iranians say they are going to kill Israelis and Americans they should be believed. “Iranians use the opening up of the restrictions on money and weapons to hand-off to the terrorists so they can hit us here at home. This administration should have tied the lifting of the arms embargo and the money to behavior change, not sponsoring terrorism. Even after the deal the Iranian rhetoric is offensive and they get away with it because of this administration’s weakness and incompetency.”

Senator Graham goes on to point out that President Obama’s track record for the Middle East is dismal: withdrawing the troops from Iraq too soon, not helping the free Syrian army against Assad, not enforcing the red line he drew, saying ISIL was part of a JV team, and claiming that Al Qaeda is decimated.  He asks, “At what point do we realize that when it comes to the Middle East President Obama does not know what he is talking about?  He has literally been wrong on everything, including this Iranian deal. This is a complete under estimation and misunderstanding of the threats. Everything this President has done regarding the Middle East policy has blown up in his face.”

There is also the argument by the Democrats that the deal will help to open up Iranian society. Elliott Abrams, an advisor to President George W. Bush, says history has shown no evidence that prosperity opens up countries, citing as examples China and Russia, which have become more autocratic since they have allowed American business into the country. He strongly believes the immense transfer of wealth the Iranians will receive from sanction relief will only go to the regime, not the people. “Just as with the 2009 uprising, the Iranian Green Revolution, their people will be forgotten. It gives the regime more money, weapons, and power to not only export terrorism, but to control its own people. They use brutal tactics to maintain control over the country.”

Former Governor Jeb Bush takes seriously the rhetoric of death to America and Israel, and feels that this agreement should not be based “on the hope that the Iranians behavior will moderate over time.  The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist. This isn’t diplomacy; it is appeasement.”

It is mind-boggling that those same people who cheered the 2009 nuclear deal President Obama made with Russia are also cheering this deal. Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) pointed out to American Thinker that the Sunni nations have already said publicly they will get a nuclear weapon given Iran’s capability, and believes this nuclear deal has set up an arms race in the Middle East.

All interviewed are hoping for a new deal, a better deal, but are not optimistic because the Obama administration has not exhibited strong American leadership.  They would like to see a restructure that includes not giving any money and weapon relief until Iran has a change of behavior and renounces its terrorist ways, not to mention preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capability.  As Michael Hayden noted, “The Iranians remain an apocalyptic messianic regime and at the same time are coldly calculating.”

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.