Do you know why senator Marco Rubio and many Republicans opposed the deal with Iran? AP has the answer today in a news report. Opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is based upon the hope that it will draw Jewish votes to Rubio and other Republicans. The AP report would be funny for its sheer idiocy if it weren't so sad. The issue of negotiations with Iran has been discussed in Washington and across America for many years, but now, supposedly, the GOP is just looking for Jewish votes? Really? The question of whether or not to increase sanctions on the mullahs (as the Republicans mostly advocated) or to give incentives to Iran in exchange for a non-verifiable promise to delay production of nukes (as Obama did with Clinton's help and support) is not one based in politics. It is a question of national security. People can argue whether or not ISIS is an existential threat to the USA. No one can argue whether or not a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran is an existential threat. Clearly, it is. Sure, the USA could erase Iran from the map in the event the mullahs launched a nuclear attack, but doing so after New York, Los Angeles, Washington and other cities have been destroyed here is not something that any American could hope for.
There are real issues that have to be decided. Can we rely on inspections that give nearly a month's notice before happening? Can we rely on the good faith and honesty of a country that has for 35 years been an implacable enemy of America and which still, today, has leaders who lead chants of "death to America"? Should we be giving Iran the funds to rescue its economy and to also use to continue to fund terrorism around the world? Does it make sense to permit Iran to develop ballistic missiles so that it can have ICBMs with nuclear tips?
President Obama always presents the agreement as a better choice than war with Iran. That, however, is not the choice. We need not have the agreement or war. We easily could have had much stiffer sanctions. Remember the sanctions in place now were opposed by both Obama and Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. It was those sanctions, however, that forced Iran to come to the negotiations in the first place. Even in the last year, Obama fought any increase in sanctions even though the ones proposed were only to go into effect in the event that Iran failed to come to an agreement with the USA by a certain date. When Obama made the talks with Iran public, he actually relaxed the sanctions and gave the Iranians breathing room. There was no need for that. So long as Iran is chanting death to America, we have no need to give them aid.
The debate about stronger sanctions, however, cannot go forward in a meaningful way, because Obama, Clinton and their supporters won't discuss that reality. They stick to the false choice of the current agreement or war. They dismiss all the opposition as merely political and not worthy of discussion. That is the true meaning of today's "news report" from the AP. By painting the opposition to the agreement as an attempt to win a few thousand more votes from Jews (as if that would make any difference in a presidential campaign), the AP simply fleshes out the phony talking points of the Obamacrats and Clintonites. One would hope that the reporters would at least learn enough about the facts so that their stories would have a smidgeon of reality.
There are real issues that have to be decided. Can we rely on inspections that give nearly a month's notice before happening? Can we rely on the good faith and honesty of a country that has for 35 years been an implacable enemy of America and which still, today, has leaders who lead chants of "death to America"? Should we be giving Iran the funds to rescue its economy and to also use to continue to fund terrorism around the world? Does it make sense to permit Iran to develop ballistic missiles so that it can have ICBMs with nuclear tips?
President Obama always presents the agreement as a better choice than war with Iran. That, however, is not the choice. We need not have the agreement or war. We easily could have had much stiffer sanctions. Remember the sanctions in place now were opposed by both Obama and Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. It was those sanctions, however, that forced Iran to come to the negotiations in the first place. Even in the last year, Obama fought any increase in sanctions even though the ones proposed were only to go into effect in the event that Iran failed to come to an agreement with the USA by a certain date. When Obama made the talks with Iran public, he actually relaxed the sanctions and gave the Iranians breathing room. There was no need for that. So long as Iran is chanting death to America, we have no need to give them aid.
The debate about stronger sanctions, however, cannot go forward in a meaningful way, because Obama, Clinton and their supporters won't discuss that reality. They stick to the false choice of the current agreement or war. They dismiss all the opposition as merely political and not worthy of discussion. That is the true meaning of today's "news report" from the AP. By painting the opposition to the agreement as an attempt to win a few thousand more votes from Jews (as if that would make any difference in a presidential campaign), the AP simply fleshes out the phony talking points of the Obamacrats and Clintonites. One would hope that the reporters would at least learn enough about the facts so that their stories would have a smidgeon of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment