05-14-2019 01:57:15 PM -0400
05-09-2019 05:01:30 PM -0400
05-09-2019 01:41:48 PM -0400
04-18-2019 10:46:35 AM -0400
04-18-2019 10:18:40 AM -0400
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.

Will Obama's Iran Deal Be the Worst Deal Ever Made?


It seems hyperbolic to say that Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran -- if Ayatollah Khamenei, in his "wisdom," allows it to happen -- will be the worst deal ever made. But if what we have been learning about it is true, it almost certainly will be.

To begin with, the agreement is said to have a sunset clause of 10-15 years.  Whatever the number turns out to be, that tells us that Iran is free to do anything it wants in the nuclear weapons field after a set amount of time, assuming that it hadn't disobeyed the strictures of the agreement before then -- a monumental assumption given past history. (Ironically, in this one way Iran is not unlike other states, all of which, to my knowledge, do their best to hide their nuclear programs, including the U.S.)

The idea -- if it can be called that -- behind this sunset clause is a kind of bet that Iran will turn into a normal country during the time frame, abjuring the fanatical religious doctrines (global war bringing about the twelfth Imam/Mahdi, etc.) inherent in Khomeinist Shiism that would make allowing Iran the bomb equivalent to giving a loaded gun to a two year old, only with global implications.  Of course the more modern view of the world is true for many Iranians now, but will it be true in the future for all or even most?  Who will be in power?  The ayatollahs -- almost all, from what we know, true believers in this apocalyptic ideology or willing to pretend they are -- seem to have a stranglehold for now.   And what about the Revolutionary Guard, evidently a universe unto itself in Iran, with expansionist goals that already have been largely successful across the Middle East through Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and now into Yemen?

Is all the endless chanting of "Death to America!  Death to Israel!" merely "patriotic rhetoric" to appease the Iranian version of low-information voters?  Or is it, like many things repeated literally since birth, buried deep in the unconscious of the populace? If it's merely rhetoric, why are those same Revolutionary Guard now on the border of Israel hundreds of miles from home, apparently plotting an invasion with their Hezbollah lackeys over the Golan Heights?  (As a sidelight,  it has been shown that those who talk most about suicide are those most likely to do it.)

And why exactly is Iran building ICBMs -- not part of the deal evidently -- if not to deliver nuclear weapons? And just what weapons would Iran be building in 10-15 years, if not now?  The atom bomb itself was 1944-45 technology.  The U.S. detonated the first hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok in 1952, making the Hiroshima bomb seem like a pop gun.  Are the Iranians that far behind that they can't do as well, or close enough, 70 or more years later?

Consider this: a thermonuclear weapon dropped on Tel Aviv would have fallout extending throughout the Arab world (the part it hadn't already demolished -- bye-bye, Beirut and forget about the Dome of the Rock)  and probably beyond to Greece (certainly to Cyprus) and possibly more of Southern Europe and Northern Africa down to the Sudan. And that's if the winds were favorable. Israel would certainly reciprocate with its arsenal of nuclear submarines and weapons that no doubt dwarf the Iranian.  The results of this would be catastrophic to the entire world.  Who knows where it would end?

And yet Obama, Kerry and Wendy Sherman wish to give the Iranians a sunset clause.  That's sunset for everybody.  And this is the "negotiation" that began supposedly to prevent Iran from enriching uranium while destroying all it had enriched.  It's hard even to remember that.