Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The Iran Deal: The Foul, New Deception
As Obama's flack Ben Rhodes has smugly admitted, congress and the American people were knowingly and deliberately lied to and deceived about the entire Iran deal. And I'm sure anyone who's been paying attention has noticed how Iran is ignoring various elements of what we were told the deal consisted of and how aggressive their action and language have become. They now realize the weakness and incompetence of whom they're dealing with.
The Iran deal merely gives them a clearer path to nuclear weapons, plus $150 billion to continue on it as well as foment terrorism worldwide and build up their conventional military. And since the Majlis, the Iranian parliament never agreed to the so-called Deal, and the Iranian regime has been quite open that the 'deal' is very different from what the Obama Administration and that buffoon Kerry told us it was, we really have nothing and got nothing while giving away the store...the toothless IAEA is even allowing Iran to perform its own inspections with zero oversight.
The fascinating thing now is the new narrative from the Obama Administration, when Ben Rhodes smugly termed his 'echo chamber in the media and the usual suspects on the Left as they try to convince all of us that this is a good thing.
We're told that whatever its flaws, the Iran deal stopped Iran's progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons, that Iran's moderates are now in control (oh, you bet they are) and anyway, it was either the Iran deal or war...and who would be crazy enough to want to invade and occupy Iran?
Well first off, since we have no real knowledge of what's going on at places like Parchin, Fordow, or Iran's secret base at Neybusher except what the Iranians choose to tell us, there's no evidence at all that Iran has given up its quest for nukes. As a matter of fact, Iran's aggressive stance of increased ballistic missile testing, ultimatums to the US Navy to stay out of the Strait of Hormuz tell us that the Iran deal certainly didn't accomplish any cessation of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Or moderation to their position of seeing the Great Satan as their main enemy.
And why would they, anyway? Because of a few words on paper Iran never actually accepted?
Of course Iran has always has and will continue to progress towards creating a nuclear arsenal. That's why they kept their illegal nuclear program clandestine and secret until it was outed by Iranian dissidents in 2003. And why they have continued to play for time with a gullible West.
One thing none of these people ever want to address is this question. Which is crazier? To stop a fascist regime from obtaining nuclear weapons while you still can, or to wait until they have them and then live with the consequences?
Another fascinating part of the new narrative is to use a stark choice of war and invading Iran versus applauding this fraudulent non-deal the Iranians obviously have no intention of abiding by. This is misleading because no serious military thinker has ever proposed that, largely because it isn't necessary to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
Merely increasing and tightening the sanctions would have brought about the crash of Iran's economy and would have had them begging for terms. That's exactly why they came to the table in the first place. Instead, Obama watered down the sanctions with numerous exceptions and eventually saw to it that the sanctions regime was completely removed.
The Israelis were willing to do the job of taking our Iran's nuclear facilities for us when it would have been far easier job than it is today without the use of a single US soldier or airman. But both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration threatened and/or gave false assurances to stand down. And coupled with the sanctions, a comprehensive attack on sites like Fordow, Parchin and Arak would have set Iran back decades, contrary to the nonsense peddled about how it would only set them back a few years.
At this point, thanks to two dysfunctional presidents, the job is more difficult but by no means impossible, although the cost in human life would be higher on both sides.
Another step could have been to replicate Reagan's strategy in 1986 when the Ayatollahs started attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. After warning them, we sank most of their navy, and had the Marines occupy Kharg Island, the main dispensary in the Persian Gulf that all of Iran's pipelines feed into. We controlled their oil for a month until President Reagan decide they'd learned a lesson and evacuated Kharg. Problem solved.
Iran's navy and air force is still highly substandard, and there's no reason this tactic couldn't be repeated, especially if it was combined with the other steps I've mentioned.
Iran is, by their own admission our worst enemy. What the Iran 'non-deal' was is out and out appeasement of that enemy. Democracies who have attempted these kind of good faith arrangements with regimes like Iran's have achieved a notable record of abject failure, at the cost of far more in blood and treasure than if they had taken a firm line when the cost was still fairly light.
There are worst things than war.