Rumblings of Discontent

Treachery Afoot

The Washington Post has been a front for the Left in the United States for decades.  So, when this loyal ally of Democratic politicians lacerates the US government's recent agreement over nuclear development by Iran, one reasonably concludes that President Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry are on translucently thin ice.

Here are the main points of a recent editorial on the "agreement":

1. The agreement is far less than Obama promised it would contain.  This comes as no surprise, as the President's vain rhetoric and bluster usually bears no relation to transpiring reality.

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

2. Obama will likely continue to bluster, blame, and bloviate in defence of the agreement.  He will deploy his usual style of ignoring substantive debate whilst attacking his opponents' intelligence and integrity.

Mr. Obama argued forcefully — and sometimes combatively — Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”  . . . . We hope Mr. Obama will make as much effort to engage in good faith with skeptical allies and domestic critics as he has with the Iranian regime.

3. The agreement, by lifting sanctions, will help revive Iran's economy which, in turn, will help sustain Iran's increasing war effort throughout the Middle East.

The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained. For example, the guidance released by the White House is vague in saying that U.S. and European Union sanctions “will be suspended after” international inspectors have “verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear related steps.” Exactly what steps would Iran have to complete, and what would the verification consist of?

Meanwhile, senior Iranian officials continue to repeat that a non-negotiable goal of Iran is the complete annihilation and literal obliteration of the state of Israel from the map.  A few years ago, such a declaration would have led to Iran being declared a "rogue state".   Doubtless Obama's whimsical fairytale world-view holds that such declarations are merely window dressing and political theatre on the part of the Iranians.  Only a gullible fool would take them seriously.  Obama sees further and deeper than other men.  That's why he can be believed and trusted by lesser mortals.  Except by inveterate recalcitrants "sounding off"-- like the Washington Post editorial board.