02-18-2019 09:36:51 AM -0800
02-18-2019 07:35:39 AM -0800
02-17-2019 12:39:26 PM -0800
02-17-2019 08:18:34 AM -0800
02-15-2019 01:00:05 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Why Hillary Supports the Iran Deal

Hillary Clinton doesn't stand for much of anything anymore other than the most conventional left pabulum.  She doesn't answer questions and she won't debate.  But she has doubled-down in favor of Obama's Iran deal:

"I'm hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I'm telling you if it's not, all bets are off," Clinton told supporters during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

Clinton said that rejecting the deal would be a "very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world."

"The Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, they're gonna say we agreed with the Americans, I guess their president can't make foreign policy," Clinton said. "That's a very bad signal to send."

A bad signal to send? That's a pretty tepid reason for supporting something as monumental as a nuclear weapons agreement with a religious-fascist state with an end-times eschatology.  Notice Clinton doesn't address the specifics of the deal at all, as opposed to Chuck Schumer who did so at considerable length in his rejection of the pact.  It's virtually impossible to support rationally this absurd agreement in which the U.S. gave in on practically everything and then donated $150 billion to the ayatollahs for the privilege of doing so.

Nevertheless, Hillary has no choice but to support it for two reasons. One: Bernie Sanders is backing it and he is getting all the popular attention on the Democratic side.  But that's minor and perhaps transitory.  The major reason is clear and deserves a separate paragraph.

Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive.  [itals. mine] He controls the attorney general's office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president. Everything she says and does in the presidential campaign must be viewed against this reality.  This is further enhanced by her need to hold together Obama's electoral coalition.  But that's the least of it compared to having erased 32,000 emails, most of which were undoubtedly government property, and done who-knows-what to the server, something that not even Nixon would ever have dreamed of.

Meanwhile,  Hillary's -- and other Democrats' -- support for the Iran deal has now basically been reduced to this: It may not be a terrific, but we're stuck with it and it would be a huge embarrassment to vote it down now.  Moreover, the sanctions could never be reinstated, so what's the point?  Oh, and by the way, if you don't agree, you're a warmonger.

Is any of that true?  To begin with we don't have to release billions of dollars to Iran, which, as sure as I am typing this, will use a large portion of the funds to enforce its will across the Middle East and kill thousands of people, possibly destroy or take over nations in  pursuit of a new Shia version of the Persian Empire, only to get nuclear weapons and ICBMs  sooner or later anyway.

Further, is it true that sanctions could not be reinstated?  Indeed, Russia and China would not be eager.  But in her campaign, Carly Fiorina suggested another way, using America's ability to restrict Iran's use of the global financial system.

On Day One in the Oval Office, I would make two phone calls. The first one would be to my good friend, Bibi Netanyahu, to reassure him we will stand with the State of Israel. The second will be to the supreme leader of Iran. He might not take my phone call, but he would get the message, and the message is this: Until you open every nuclear and every military facility to full, open, anytime, anywhere, for real inspections, we are going to make it as difficult as possible for you to move money around the global financial system.

I don't know if that would work, but it sounds like a much better plan than the one Obama has on offer. As for Hillary, she's no more than Obama's "Yes ma'am" at this point.  Does she even care or realize that Obama has effectively taken sides in the Muslim civil war between Shia and Sunni that has been going on since the Battle of Karbala in 680?  Maybe she should ask Bill.

UPDATE: Iran and Its Terror Proxies - A Guide to a Dangerous Future by James Kirchick details what Iran could do with its huge influx of money.  Someone should ask Hillary about that... or even Obama.