Hillary finally gets it right on Iran
The Iran deal originally negotiated by former Secretary of State John Kerry was a bad deal for the United States … period. It provided billions of dollars to finance terrorism and no guarantee that Iran would not go nuclear in the future. That should come as no surprise since Kerry represents a globalist view that American interests need to be accommodating to the rest of the world – as opposed to being a full-bore advocate for American interests. Among President Trump’s better moves — terminating that deal.
From the very onset, President Biden has expressed his desire to put the United States back into the deal – even though the current realities make that an even worse idea. For almost two years now, the Iranians have been jerking the United States around at the negotiating table – demanding even more concessions (and money) from the United States.
The underlying problem with the deal is that Iran has no intention of abandoning its plan to be a nuclear power – and never has. The first deal was easy for them because it only delayed their uranium enrichment program for only 15 years – a short delay in their program in return for billions of dollars in benefits from the Obama administration.
While Kerry claimed that the deal prevented Iran from EVER having nuclear weapons, that was pure bs. There are only two ways to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that is to use military force to stop them (the Israeli option) or to institute a change to a more friendly regime (the revolution option). Iran is following the North Korea example of talk, talk, talk while moving ahead in developing nuclear weapons.
Neither the old deal of the current Biden negotiations addresses Iran’s missile development of longer-range delivery vehicles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
While a lot of other matters have been dominating the news, the Biden administration continues to promote a negotiated Iran deal.
In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton hit the nail on the head. She said without equivocation that the United States should not be at the table or even talk about negotiations with the folks in Tehran. Given the current situation, it is incomprehensible that Biden would still be seeking an agreement with Iran.
The leaders in Tehran continue to be the number one sponsors of world terrorism. They are the chief cause of unrest in the Middle East. They maintain unbridled hostility to Israel. In view of the unrest among the people in Iran, this is a propitious time to go on the diplomatic and covert offensive. It is time for the United States and our allies to go hardball.
Instead of another Iranian deal, we need to be imposing more sanctions. We need to be aiding and abetting the civil unrest in that country. Unfortunately, the Biden policy is to again make the mistakes of the past – when we did nothing to help the people of Iran when they previously rose up against their oppressors in Tehran.
Clinton has it right. It is time for more Democrat leaders to follow her lead and mount pressure on Biden to end his doomed-to-fail Iran policy for one with a more positive outcome for the Unite States and the free world.
So, there ‘tis.
Lock her up
Really, Trump’s in the rearview and you want to revisit Hillary?
Where’s Obama?
Lock that mulatto up too
I understand that there is a concern about Iran getting nuclear weapons and those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. If all nuclear warheads are counted—operational warheads, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads scheduled for dismantlement—the USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel together possess a total of approximately 19 000 nuclear weapons.
The real issue and the reason Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons is more diabolical. Currently there are five nuclear armed nations that are democracies, and three that are autocracies. So within the G8, democracies have a 5-3 advantage in all decisions. Should Iran and DPRK acquire a nuclear arsenal, they would force admittance into these councils and that would change the balance of power on these groups. Its really all about recognition on the world stage and the chance to sell their authoritarian ideas. And this most likely more probable and dangerous than a few terrorist taking over a nuclear country and firing one off. I remember when Pakistan pushed for nuclear weapons and India screamed bloody murder and that the world would come to an end if PAkistan got nuclear weapons. While terrorism is still a concern with regard to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fact is is that Pakistan has become more behaved after acquiring nuclear weapons. Most strategists attribute this better behavior to 1) Not being as worried about India when asserting its state goals; 2) Realization that once you have nuclear weapons, you also have nuclear weapons pointing at you.
An interesting article on this topic of IRan and nuclear weapons states, “Each nuclear state has behaved somewhat differently with nuclear weapons. However, history suggests that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would be less universally emboldened than the pessimists fear, but nor would it find nuclear weapons to be useless. Ultimately, the fact that nuclear weapons are useful tools of international statecraft makes it hard to persuade countries to give up nuclear weapons once they have them, but has also motivated vigorous and often successful U.S. efforts to prevent their spread.” See full article at “https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/okay-so-what-if-iran-does-get-nuclear-weapons”.