The Iran Deal is bad for America, very bad
(This post made use of the work of MILG-OPS.)
In discussing the Iran Deal, most people are focused on the trees rather than the forest
By focusing on the details, we have discussed the efficacy of inspections, the breakout time required, the effects of sanctions relief, the absence of quid pro quo, the trustworthiness of Iran, etc. What has not been adequately debated is whether it is good or bad for America.
But that is undergoing a change.
In the last few days the following articles have been published:
The Real Goal of the Nuclear Deal: Iran Détente, by Jonathan Tobin, Commentary
The choice here isn’t one between a flawed nuclear deal and war, but between Iran détente with a tyrannical, anti-Semitic, aggressive Islamist regime and a reboot of the diplomatic process that has been hijacked by appeasers.
Why Empower Iran? By Alexander H Joffe, Middle East Forum
But there are deeper reasons for the outreach to Iran. Some have suggested that the long-term Obama policy, from at least 2008, has been to reintegrate Iran into the Middle East, putting it on the path to becoming a “very successful regional power,” as Obama put it, against an even longer term bet that moderate forces will become ascendant.
The theory of Iranian reintegration, however, captures only part of the administration’s motives. At the root is something deeper still, reflected in Obama’s most personal and idiosyncratic policy statement; that “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam,” that it is “part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace,” and that “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.
Norman Podhoretz wrote Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later
For our negotiating partners, the new goal was to open the way to lucrative business contracts, but for Mr. Obama it was to remove the biggest obstacle to his long-standing dream of a U.S. détente with Iran. To realize this dream, he was ready to concede just about anything the Iranians wanted—without, of course, admitting that this was tantamount to acquiescence in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them.
Who Bamboozled Whom? By Michael Doron, MOSAIC
Those who think the Iranians outwitted us fail to recognize one very important thing: the White House never intended to contain Iran.
The nuclear deal with Iran is a wildly lopsided agreement. Whereas Iran received permanent concessions, the United States and its partners managed only to buy a little time. The agreement will delay the advent of a nuclear-capable Iran for about a decade—and much less than that should Tehran decide to cheat. Meanwhile, thanks to the deal, Iranian influence in the Middle East is set to grow. All of these benefits accrue to Iran without its ever having given any guarantee that it will change its revolutionary, expansionist, and brutal ways.
Drawing attention to what this deal is all about is very important. But there is more than can and should be done to kill the Deal.
First it is important to stress how Iranians have been killing Americans since the Shah was deposed.
Iran was responsible for the 1983 suicide bomb attacks in Beirut in which 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French paratroopers were killed.
For a more detailed list of Iranian crimes against Americans, read Iran Is Killing Americans And Their Allies.
Not to mention that Iran keeps calling for “Death to America” and means it.
Secondly, The Iran Deal benefits Russia big time. And Russia, as we know, is America’s arch enemy.
Russia and Putin are the immediate and long-range big winners from this deal.
This deal directly and materially helps Russia’s unchecked aggression in its continuing campaign to dominate Eastern Europe [Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania… See Newsweek]
This deal places the US mainland at direct risk of ICBM attack. Russia has also announced that it will upgrade that portion of its own ICBM force both qualitatively and quantitatively that is aimed at the United States.
Russia has announced that it will sell Iran ICBM technology. Iran does not need ICBMs to attack Israel. ICBMs in the hands of Iran with a nuclear weapon are a threat to the entire East Coast of the United States. They still shout “death to America ” in Iran. Several days ago Pres. Rouhani led a parade through the streets of Tehran whose theme was very vocal: “death to America !”
Money coming from weapons and other sales to Iran will help finance this enhancement of Russian capability which will improve Russia’s position as they announced in terms of their assaults against Ukraine, and in their announced aggravations against Poland and Latvia.
Russia has also announced that they will sell Iran short-range attack missiles, which place US naval forces in danger and give Iran control over the essential waterways [Strait of Hormuz; Bab el- Mandeb] which control approximately 50% of all of the petroleum that is shipped in the world.
Russia has also announced that they will sell advanced air defense missiles and communications to Iran, which would make any nuclear/missile force impregnable to attack.
The Iranian threat is directed primarily against the United States, the Great Satan.
To Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, his circle of ruling mullahs and the entire command structure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, destroying Israel is, to them, just an added bonus and a religious obligation.
There are no restrictions on the money that will be released to Iran. The “hope” and “it’s only logical” arguments presented by the administration that it will be spent for internal economic and social improvements do not appear anywhere in the agreement.
This deal, by providing substantial additional income to Iran, materially assures the strength and permanence of the hold of the existing government over the Iranian population:
- by increasing the resources that can be allocated to the internal security apparatus;
- by allowing for substantial increases in expenditures for infrastructure, economic development, health etc. [This will reduce restlessness of the younger generation whose discontent is much more economic than political. The implicit deal has been made that ‘we will not crack down upon you for transgressions (within bounds) that you commit in private as long as your resistance is not public.’]
- by removing an existing current source of tension concerning financial allocations and national priorities between the ruling clerics and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps by substantially increasing the terror budget.
Iran will have significantly increased resources to devote to terror and penetration operations that directly threaten American lives and American interests. Currently Iran is the major funder of international terrorism, so this agreement increases the IRGC’s operational abilities in Iraq and through proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Sinai, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The deal permits the revolutionary guard corps to expand their already considerable penetration of Central and South America.
[See: Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Iran and Hezbollah in the Western Hemisphere; Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa,Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Mar 18, 2015 http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-iran-and-hezbollah-western-hemisphere.]
Since April 2015 the Obama administration has released $700 million per month to Iran. Unfortunately, a substantial percentage of these released funds have gone to fund internal security operations within Iran and to finance increased operations of the IRGC throughout the world. According to the sworn congressional testimony of Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Obama’s nominee to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Iran is directly linked to deaths of more than 500 U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan.”
Background: additional facts useful for understanding the proposed “deal”
- In this part of the world true negotiations only begin after the agreement is signed. How many more concessions will be demanded for what will never be a final settlement?
- The Iranian Parliament does not vote on this agreement until after the U.S. Congress votes. Will the US be called back to sweeten the pot?
- The Iranians have announced that they will be governed by the Supreme Leader’s interpretation of each clause. Can it be any clearer that they will interpret the agreement to their satisfaction?
- Iran will be actually doing the ground monitoring for the UN inspectors/observers at all of the current known sites. The Iranians will provide their readings of the “situation on the ground” from which the UN inspectors will draw their conclusions. US nationals will be excluded from all UN and all other inspection teams.
- If Iran is caught cheating and sanctions are in any way “snapped back,” this agreement gives Iran the right to end their compliance from all their obligations that they have undertaken. Thus, the incentive is for Iran to strictly observe the provisions of this agreement until the Iranian economy is moving, then to cheat around the edges, and then to walk away from the entire agreement if and when they want to (completely based on their desires and their timetable).
- According to various administration spokespersons’ interpretations of this agreement, It:
- has already taken those who have been found guilty of murdering Americans and have been penalized by US courts completely off the hook and has granted them complete freedom from these judgments and verdicts.
- obligates the US to assist and train Iran in preventing any sabotage against its nuclear facilities. This obligates the US to protect the Iranian nuclear and missile programs from cyber attack and may require the US to share cyber protection technology with the Iranians.
- states that the US may not impose any new sanctions on Iran for any other reasons. So if next year Iran’s terrorists were to attack a US embassy, the US would not be allowed to sanction Iran for such aggression. [If you think this is far-fetched consider the attack by Iran on the Jewish center in Argentina and the current lack of follow-up by the Argentine government . Also, it is public record that the US did not report Iranian transgressions and violations of the current agreement to the UN in order not to jeopardize “progress” on the negotiations with Iran. Further, the US refused to accept the evidence that the reactor under construction in Syria which had been financed by Iran and was utilizing North Korean technology was in fact a nuclear reactor until after Israel destroyed it and the exact nature of the installation could no longer be denied by US intelligence/State Department.}
The US military have been very vocal in expressing their concern to this agreement. For example see the congressional testimonies of both the outgoing and the incoming chiefs of the joint Chiefs:
- These military purchases from China and Russia are just the 1st wave of a major upgrade of Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities. Also, these purchases provide both China and Russia with additional financial (purchase dollars +increased fleet sizes) which enable both China and Russia to invest in upgrades which will directly benefit the Chinese and Russian military forces.
- Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Obama’s nominee to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Iran directly linked to deaths of more than 500 U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan.”
- The Iran Task Force, a bi-partisan team made up of leading retired military, national security, and policy experts, has been a leading voice about the danger that this bad deal will allow Iran to become a nuclear state. See: