Intro by Jeff Rutherford
Twice recently I have shown Dr. Thomas Sowell’s side-by-side comparison of the Left’s vs. Right’s conflicting instincts about how best to maintain international peace. Here it is again:
Now that the deed is done (although not yet reviewed by Congress), here are two recent op-ed columns by Fareed Zakaria and Rep. Mike Coffman that exemplify the conflict described by Sowell.
Join me in continuing to pay close attention over the coming years, because this is a world issue that certainly will unfold to reveal the actual results. What will Obama’s planted seed eventually reap?
Necessary and Proper 
This treaty will not stop Iran from getting the bomb. But cancelling the treaty will not stop Iran either. Stuxnet was a neat trick, but it only slowed them down. Eventually the US will have to be prepared to face down a nuclear Iran.
LikeLike
@The Ed,
Your dire assessment is warranted, I think. But remember that the sanctions regime, over the course of a few years, ultimately forced Iran to the negotiating table.
Obama, wanting a deal for his legacy, immediately began giving Iran money. About $12 billion last year, for example. He seems to have foolishly thought that “forced to the table” meant “we have a deal.” But as soon as he began reducing Iran’s sanctions, they began prodding to see what they could get away with.
With Obama, of course, they quickly learned that they could get away with anything. Over the past three years (including Jake Sullivan’s covert meetings with them) they have made a game of it, and have determined that there is no level of provocation, no outrageous statement, act or policy, that would cause the US to walk away from the table. It has been one of the worst displays of international negotiations ever, particularly with Iran playing the part of the all-powerful aggressor and the US in the role of “we gotta have a deal no matter what we have to agree to.”
No wonder the terms were kept secret. And no wonder the situation is so bad that it has driven previously antagonistic parties to ally with each other (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and others) in order to try to recover some semblance of protection after the collapse of America as a world power.
Of course Fareed Zakaria is happy to see the deal. He’s been writing hopefully for some time about America’s loss of power/prestige/influence, and published a book on this hope — which was evidently one of the few books that Obama seems to have bothered to read. He carried it around with him for some time, at least. Zakaria also, years ago, swapped out an international Newsweek cover for one depicting the US flag dumped in the trash can. The American version’s cover didn’t show this, of course.
In short, a strong sanctions regime, if it could be rebuilt, could bring Iran back for a better deal. But not as long as our current emasculated president is in power: That would be pushing the stone of sissy-puss.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
LikeLike
Yes, we will have to face a nuclear Iran; but by then Obama will be basking in the sun at his Hawaiian villa while laughing at the stupidity of the American people.
LikeLike
Fareed, who often omits crucial points for political purposes, left a word out of his title. It should be “Iran’s Road to Conquering Modern World Opened by Deal.”
Carly Fiorina (who has indeed negotiated deals with Middle Eastern leaders) recently remarked, “If you haven’t walked away from the table three times, you didn’t get the best deal.” She went on to lay out negotiating approaches and principles that are correct, but foreign to the current US administration.
So, it was Iran operating from a position of evident strength. They knew they were dominating Obama. They walked away from the deal over and over, and each time Obama conceded more to the jihadists. At the end, we were just begging them to pretend to agree to a deal for appearances’ sake.
We had forced Iran to the table with sanctions. Obama immediately began relieving the sanctions, before any sort of deal had been reached, just as a reward for coming to the table. And to encourage them to pretend to go along with the idea of negotiating. Thus, the US’s strength in the deal was gone, and the jihadists sensed this.
Can you imagine cutting a deal with the United States during which, throughout the negotiations, you were telling anyone who would listen that you were going to destroy the US and its allies? And that you continued financing attacks on US interests and held US prisoners all through the negotiations, and made certain that these issues were never part of the negotiations? Neville Chamberlain’s satisfaction signing his deal was trivial compared to Obama’s obvious obtuse obeisance.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent comment, Keith. I hope Chuck Schumer gets the backbone to not just “quietly” disagree with Obama, but also push HARD to convince other Dems to turn away from this stupidity with a veto-proof rebuke.
– Jeff
LikeLike