++I have a well-documented history of involvement in activities protesting Iran's history of human rights violations and the nature of their political system. So I should be one against any deal with Iran over its nuclear program. But the current resistance in the United States to the interim agreement is flat out nuts.
++Jennifer Rubin writing today in the Washington Post writes about Hollande's skepticism about the prospects of a final deal and Eli Wiesel taking an ad out in the New York Times urging the "total dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure" and strengthening the economic sanctions.
++Now Rubin opens her piece saying that Iran is not required to account for illegal weapons or take irreversible steps to disable them. What does that mean? What illegal weapons? This is not the case like Syria of a stockpile of chemical weapons.
++Andrew Sullivan caught the "AIPAC" bill sponsored by Charles Schumer and Mark Kirk that would rule out any deal that allows Iran to enrich any uranium at all. As Sullivan rightly points out, that would mean there would be no deal at all.
++But the bill is more proactive than that. It says that if Israel decides it is in their own national interest to attack Iran, the United States will stand with Israel and authorize the use of military force; diplomatic,military and economic aid to Israel in defense of its territory, people and existence.
++Sullivan is also right that international law does not condone attacking another country just because you don't like their programs. He is also right that this allows Bibi Netanyahu to dictate American policy and its actions.
++Remember President Obama has given Israel the latest "bunker buster" bombs and anti-missile technology. In addition, the Obama Administration gave Israel a ten-year military assistance deal.
++Luckily,neither the House or the Senate were competent enough to pass additional sanctions. Additional sanctions would have split the large coalition insisting on Iran diminishing their nuclear capability. So far,there is China, Russia,and the EU as well as Canada and the U.K. This would fall apart and there would be no deal.
++The Interim deal calls for aggressive inspection,the watering down of highest enriched uranium and actually sets their program back months.
++There is legitimate skepticism about the prospects of a final deal. The Rowhani government has a limited honeymoon period or it will face the fate of the Khatami government's overtures to the West.
++But why not give diplomacy a chance? We are talking about a government with no nuclear weapons as of yet and we might convince them not to pursue this option.
++If you are against any such deal, then please be overt in your support of a war and how you are going to pay for it? And tell me what rationale you will use. We noticed that President Obama could not get Congress to support a strike on Syria's chemical weapons so why does anyone expect the response to be any different for a more difficult target? And AIPAC lobbied like hell for the Syrian strike. There were 250 lobbyists on the House floor and they couldn't pull it off.
++The man who said he would allow Bibi Netanyahu dictate American Middle East policy lost the last election. You can see him on the new Netflix documentary "Mitt".
++As I have made plain over the years,my fears are for another Fukushima in the Persian Gulf, not nuclear weapons.
++What would happen if our allies insisted that Israel finally open up about their nuclear weapons and allow United Nations inspections of their capability?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment