In defense of its concordat with Iran, the Obama administration is peddling a growing list of misrepresentations. Here are four:

1. Iran will be motivated to keep the agreement. False. Iran may already be plotting its escape from the agreement! Dr. Emily Landau of the Institute for National Security Studies points out that Iran has twice bolted in the past -- in 2004 and again in 2005 -- when it felt that the agreements it concluded with the EU-3 (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) were no longer serving its interests.

Lo and behold, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has an explicit defection clause, which allows Tehran to exit the deal without any deliberations or advance warning if it feels that any of the P5+1 countries is reintroducing any form or degree of sanctions against Iran.

So, first Iran will pocket hundreds of billions of dollars in (almost-immediate and unconditional) sanctions relief, then sign hundreds of billions of dollars in investment and business partnership deals with the major French and German companies that are now in the gold rush to Iran. Then it can accuse Congress or the next U.S. president of being nasty and use that as the pretext for its nuclear snapback.

2. In case of Iranian violations, America can snap back sanctions. Just the opposite is true. The agreement intentionally embeds the U.S. in a web of time-consuming and complex multilateral processes that place significant and perhaps insuperable obstacles to both a snapback of economic sanctions or resort to an American military strike. Professor Jeffrey Harf of the University of Maryland has detailed how the deal places sky-high barriers in the way of American enforcement in the event of Iranian violations.

Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has shown that the nitty-gritty of the so-called sanction snapback provisions actually provide disincentives for the U.S. and its partners to confront Iran in the event that Iran does cheat (which it has a long record of doing, and has done even during the recent nuclear talks). Moreover, Iran is supposed to get Western help and technology for defense against nuclear sabotage. So the U.S. is essentially deterring itself from ever acting against Iran, no matter what. Which apparently is exactly what U.S. President Barack Obama was after.

3. The deal will moderate or contain Iran's aggressive ambitions in the Middle East. Not at all. The nuclear deal seems to be just the first act in a longer drama of American retreat, retrenchment and accommodation as Obama hands the keys to the Persian Gulf and beyond to his new Shiite friends.

Obama says that he "hopes" that "we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave." But, he adds, "We're not counting on it. So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior."

What a damning self-indictment! Is it believable that "conversations" are going to change or contain Iran? What is really needed, instead, says Professor Walter Russell Mead of the New America Foundation, is a tough regional strategy to counter Iran's rush for hegemony; an aggressive, anti-Revolutionary Guard Corps, anti-Assad, anti-Hezbollah policy.

But the White House never intended to contain Iran, says Dr. Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute. It has consistently displayed an aversion to countering Iran. America's allies in the Middle East (and this list of allies supposedly still includes Israel) "have time and again begged the president to help them curtail Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and time and again Obama has refused."

Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies expands on this in an in-depth study published yesterday. Under cover of this accord, Iran is likely to greatly strengthen its grip on the Middle East, he writes. It will solidify its control of Yemen, including developing the capacity to block the Bab el-Mandeb strait and thus threaten global trade and the Suez Canal, Egypt's lifeline. It will take complete control of Lebanon. With the help of other countries (perhaps even including the U.S.) it will "save" the region by fighting the Islamic State group, to become the true ruler of Iraq and of what would remain of Alawite Syria. Hezbollah will be given thousands of precise missiles, while enjoying Iranian backing and silent American approval.

Amidror: "There is little chance that America will follow through on its promise that after signing the agreement it will be more determined in its efforts to contain Iran. This claim is unrealistic and illogical, since once a rival state becomes a partner to an agreement, one does not increase efforts taken against it in other realms. It is the nature of agreements that cover a certain area of relations that they prevent pressure being applied in other areas, rather than increasing pressure. No one in the West will now be interested in jeopardizing either the agreement or trade relations with Iran. It is therefore likely that, despite the messages of reassurance coming from Washington, Iran will become much stronger over the next 15 years, internally, regionally, economically and militarily, with no opposition from the US."

4. There was no better deal, and the alternative to this deal is war. Both assertions are absolutely fallacious. More coercive diplomacy could have delivered a better deal. However, Obama refused to put maximum pressure on Iran. He was not willing to impose additional sanctions on Iran (as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested and Congress wanted), or to threaten the use of military force. When you are in talks with a genocidal, terror-sponsoring regime and claim that you have no viable military option, you are not negotiating. You are begging.

Professor Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute points out that there is a historical precedent for tougher diplomacy that works. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify SALT II, ending the strategic arms limitation talks, but war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not ensue. Both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan instead increased the pressure on the Soviet Union dramatically. The lesson is that walking away from bad deals does not inevitably lead either to war or to the end of negotiations.

(Excerpted from a larger article by David M. Weinberg, Director of Public Affairs at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.)

I am not sure why Obama does this. He paints only two solutions to a problem, and of course the one that differs with his is the disastrous choice.

We saw this in the Obamacare debate. Its either Ocare, or the horrible, calamitous "status quo."
Its a false dichotomy and any thinking man knows this is deceptive.

Very, very few problems in life have only two possible solutions. Clearly, this is not one of them.

He had many options, long before any "war" would break out, and as I have said before, there was NO chance Iran would declare or engage in war with Israel and the U.S. for a military "mission" of taking out their reactors.

Iran knew that we were weary of "war" and they saw how Obama handled the Taliban, ISIS, Syria, Russia, the pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc etc etc and somehow, a desperate terrorist state with a two bit military felt they had the upper hand in a negotiation with the worlds only true superpower, as their economy was crumbling and their people were desperate.  

Incredible..

of the usual Israeli supporters.  

The most important thing you purposely failed mention is the 7x 24 monitoring.  

As tax paying US citizen, I am sick of Israel's belly aching. Israel is nothing more than a war mongering nation governed by a habitual lier call Netanyahu who, has zero credibility internationally.  

Alante, Merkel and Cameron has publicly called him out as untrustworthy. Israel is not interested in a negotiated peaceful solution and has broken every international law and UN directives as far as settlements are concerned.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton asked Netanyahu to sto illegal settlements so did Germany, France and UK and Netanyahu ignored all of them. When Israel walked awY from the negotiations, it became clear, it is war mongering nation and does not want peace.  

Now, Penagon just agreed that Israel has nuclear weapons.

 U.S. is not beholden to Israel when it is only interested in perpetual war

Here's what you just said, in condensed form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hIz_vkZH5k

It was hysterical, but for all the wrong reasons.

Work, then bomb then lie.

We signed a deal with Iran, that contains secret side deals the Iranians have with the IAEA, that....gulp...we HAVEN'T seen...and we'll never see?

Lurch wasn't clear on that last point. LO

John Kerry - an effete Botoxian... er pardon me, Bostonian who married above his station and is as out of touch with reality as the buffoon he couldn't beat in 2004. The man got bitch slapped by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif so badly the fucking Ayatollah himself had to warn Zarif to tone it down. What kind of a flaccid piece of appeasing douchebaggery would sit there like a pussy and let that Persian COCHON spray spittle all over his face and not do anything but cower and tuck tail? A Duck-tailed Kerrypuss, that's what

et’s look at Number 4

“There was no better deal, and the alternative to this deal is war. Both assertions are absolutely fallacious. More coercive diplomacy could have delivered a better deal.”

 
That is pure speculation  but I’ll play if you tell me what “coercive diplomacy”  he is talking about? It is true that Iran would be hurt by imposing a total trade embargo; no electricity exports, no gas imports, no oil sales, no exceptions.

But there are three problems with that. First, the United States cannot do that unilaterally. You would have to get every country in the world to agree to that. And China and Russia are not going do that. So the “get tough with more sanctions” at best is to eliminate the exceptions (special licenses etc) in the US Iran sanctions law; that is all we can do unilaterally. In reality, the current sanctions would much WEAKER as the other countries left the fold.

Second, tougher sanctions have no effect on the thugs who run the country. They stay in power; the people of Iran are the ones who suffer. Took to Fidel and Dear Leader about it.

Third,  the real flaw in this argument is – it is too late for more “crippling sanctions.”  Breakout time is down to three months and detection time is at least a month. So if Iran chose to actually build a bomb, they would have one in three months. Our military says we need a year to take out those facilities by military force.

Now, you are negotiating with a nuclear power, instead of a troublemaker who poses no existential threat to anybody.  Do you really think there is ANY chance Iran would back down once it has a bomb

Mari, what are you talking about???

Did we get "every country in the world" to agree to Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Or his attack on Libya?  

You are making the point that America needs "every other" country's "permission" to do something in our own national security interest? Does Russia and China seek ours about their own national security interests?

Even if P5+1 balked at tougher sanctions, there were other ways to get Iran to capitulate.

A naval blockade would bring Iran to its knees. Taking out its only refinery could be another step far short of "war" or any extended bombing mission.

It really is amazing how weak many liberals think the most powerful nation on earth is and your post is proof of that

Of course a naval blockade and striking their refinery are "acts" of war. Who said it wasn't? The point is that Iran wouldn't GO TO WAR over those acts, with Israel and the U.S. Just like Syria didn't nor Iraq when Israel bombed those reactors.

So that makes your whole point about drones and "going to war" moot.  

Bombing Pakistan (which is an "act of war" by the way) isn't on Mari's "ask permission" list and it violates U.N. policy and Pakistani sovereignty.  

Now, to be honest, I agree with the drone program, but the main point I am making is that sometimes we don't heed what other countries want us to do or demand that we do because it is not in our national security to do so.

Did JFK ask for permission when he initiated the naval blockade of Cuba? Fk no. But it was pretty damn effective, right? Scared the shit out of the Russians and they backed down without a shot being fired. And compare them, a world power, to Iran today. You don't think THEY would cave too?

And if stopping them from getting a nuke ISNT in our national security, what the hell has Kerry and the U.S. delegation been doing all this time negotiating in hope of them not getting one???

and Oniks anti-ship cruise missiles.  

       These missiles can fly at 3 times the speed of sound with a payload of more than twice the payload of the old French Exocet; the Onik can even maneuver in flight.

       And we don’t really have adequate defenses against the slow and weak Exocet missile as the tragic story of the USS Stark shows. Iran has some of those as well.

        Now line up our carriers and other large ships  in the narrow Persian Gulf. Seed these waters with mines to further limit movement. We would be slaughtered.

      You  could argue that these missiles essentially have made our carriers and other big warships obsolete in the case of outright war. Remember when Romney wanted that 600 ship fleet just bc it sounds so good? The military experts jumped all over him for out dated thinking.

        You can be sure of one thing –if we go to war with Iran, we are not going to put our billion dollar capital ships in range of these missiles just because some guy is still stuck in the sixties when "naval blockades" had some strategic value.

       A naval blockade? Worst idea ever

The idea would be to set up the blockade in the Arabian Sea, and you will be surprised to hear this as your naïveté on this matter is exposed, the AS is not narrow and not mined.

And if you beleive the Iranians would attack the US navy, from a non lethal blockage, hundreds of miles from their ports, you are delusional.  

We would respond and how do you think that would turn out for Iran, counselor? LOL

But then again, you think Iran would have walked away from this deal by giving up four hostages so I guess you will believe anything.

This is all starting to make sense to me now as it is no wonder how Iran raped Obama in this deal. The "all powerful and mighty" Iranian military has liberals shitting their pants. LO

I stipulated they were "acts of war." I differentiated between Iran thinking they were acts of war and Iran actually going to war with us.

You just misread what I wrote. No biggee, Laff.

But the people actually worked on writing the agreement has definitely seen it.

Does anyone actually believe, six top negotiators wrote the agreement? If you do, I have few bridges for sale up north and some land for sale down south.

"During Tuesday's hearing, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, asked Kerry if he had seen the agreements. The secretary of state said while he had been briefed on the additional material, he had not seen it himself”.

How many bills Ted Poe has actually seen and read before he voted?  

Canceling my US News and World Rubbish subscription. They have become similar to the Confused News Network (CNN)

"One of these things in not like the other."

"Did JFK ask for permission when he initiated the naval blockade of Cuba?"

OK Jack. Can you tell me the difference between Cuba and Iran in relationship to us?  

And, are you suggesting that any of our friends and allies would have objected to our blockading Cuba? So, your point has no value or meaning!  

And the difference is we looked down the throat of the Soviets, a super power with nukes, an existential threat to the U.S. homeland, and used a brilliant non lethal strategy and they blinked and they ran home.

Obama got housed by a non nuclear terrorist state in a lopsided negotiation where Iran is NOT an existential threat to the U.S. homeland.

That is the difference in the two scenarios Matt. One president, JfK, stood up to evil, the other, Obama, capitulated to it.

Doc referenced link was dead on. For people like Mari and apparently you, you believe there were only two options. If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it.

Most would disagree.

I just know that you can't proof that Iran could have been made to capitulate to the terms of an agreement you think could have been made!  

account that, but for the negotiations and agreement, Iran would already have a bomb by now if they chose to make one.  So we would be applying “coercive diplomacy” to a nuclear power.

       Instead, we have an agreement that cuts Iran’s enriched uranium by 97%; prevents enrichment above 3.6% for 15 years; bars a plutonium bomb; extends breakout time to one year; and provides inspections in such a short period of time that for all practical purposes meaningful cheating is impossible.

       Yes we have to live with the likihood that Iran will use some of the money from sanctions relief to fund terrorism – but that is why it was called a “negotiation” rather than “you do everything we want you to do” as the righties seem to think.

         And if they do cheat, we can than then impose that “naval blockade,” as long as you don’t put me and Matt on the ship

I think it is logical and worth a shot, rather than signing the deal we did, which as you know all to well I am not keen on, but I can't tell you to a 100% certitude my ideas would work.

But I can tell you this. The naval blockade has been thrown out there by some very informed Dems and they believe it was a possibility as well. It is certainly worthy of discussion, at the very least.

Why did we say we needed "anytime, anywhere" inspections back only a few months ago?

And why did the Iranians demand that it be cut back to 24 days?

If they don't intend to cheat, the Iranians wouldn't have had an issue with that clause.

Isnt that just common sense?

END OF MESSAGE