++Josh Marshall at TalkingPoints catches something about the recent debate. Advocates for a tougher deal request curbs on ballistic missiles, Iran's end for support to Hezbollah and Hamas,and end of support for Assad. All these are important issues which give us concern about Iran. Now Josh points out that Bibi is demanding recognition of the state of Israel when his defect ally doesn't.
++So what happened to the concerns about the "existential threat"? Shouldn't one be focussed on eliminating this dreadful thing. It seems that the checks in the Deal are actually adequate to deal with that but now the credits are demanding anything unrelated to the nuclear threat.
++Josh calls them out on this. You aren't calling for a tougher deal ,just no deal. It's a charade.
++It's now Hillary, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who support the deal.
++Josh's observation actually revives the initial objections prior to any deal having been completed. The main complaint was that all these elements,including human rights violations, were not part of the negotiations. Time after time John Kerry has to emphasize that we are concerned with the nuclear issue only. Even when speculation occurred by corridor discussions, the State Department had to reaffirm Kerry was only talking about the nuclear issue.
++But the early complaints have morphed into criticisms of the structural flaws of the Deal as not containing all these unrelated issues.
++Josh is right--Aren't we supposed to be concerned about the primary life-threatening issue of an Iranian nuclear bomb? But apparently,by throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, we admit to ourselves that the issue has been neutralized.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment