A part of me thinks that the Iran nuclear deal, finally concluded last night, is much ado about nothing. After all, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear-weapons program and doesn’t seem to have done any research toward that end since 2003 as nuclear powers the United States, Russia, and China continue to upgrade their systems. While the fear of Iran developing nuclear weapons was hyped, nevertheless the deal is important because it begins the process of relieving Iran of sanctions. With regards to which, reports the Guardian:
Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has taken steps to shrink its programme, UN, US and EU sanctions will be lifted.
Is there a timeline on that? The Guardian again:
None of the sanctions relief measures will take immediate effect, but will be conditional on the IAEA verifying that Iran has carried out all its promised steps. The aim is to have this done by the end of the year.
At that point, $100bn in Iranian assets around the world will be unfrozen. Ordinary Iranians, however, will have to wait several months before feeling the economic benefits.
Of course a Republican congress, with an assist from Israel, will seek to derail the deal, which doesn’t seem to have been graced with any special name. Representative of conservative objections is John Bolton, one-time U.S. ambassador to the UN (I know, I never quite believed it either)
This act of appeasement by the Obama Administration now legitimizes both Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and the terrorist regime itself. It endangers the national security interests of the US, Israel, and allies across the word. Not only can Iran continue to pursue its 30-plus year objective of pursuing deliverable nuclear weapons, but the regime, the leading state sponsor of terror for over 35 years, is also free of global financial sanctions. Ultimately, we will see that Obama has capitulated to Iran’s demands, and this agreement is simply a pit stop between one set of negotiations and the other.
Also:
Hillary Clinton led America’s diplomacy while the Middle East crumbled, and not surprisingly she supports this act of appeasement with Iran. Her policies are the same as Obama’s. As Secretary of State she put American lives and national security interests at risk, as president we have no reason to believe her position on foreign affairs would change.
Two things jump out:
- How tired use of the word “appeasement” that conservatives reflexively trot out for so many occasions has become. More and more Republicans seems to have passed their sell-by date.
- How Bolton tries to smear Hillary Clinton as well as President Obama for the deal, so they can hold the nuke deal against her, too, as Obama’s second term winds down and she runs for president.
Needless to say, Obama pledged to use his powers of veto should Congress reject the deal.
Finally one wonders if the United States and Iran will now work more closely on Middle-Eastern regional security. Will they now coordinate their campaigns against the Islamic State?