mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Selling the Nuke Deal
Will the Drip, Drip, Drip Wear Away the Iran Deal?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    “the supposed binary choice between the deal or war”

    What Churchill said of the Munich deal with Hitler applies to this diplomatic triumph of “peace in our time” as well:

    “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

    • Fat_Man

      Given the expansive and imperial nature of the Iranian regime, aligning our interests with Tehran’s will bring more violence and instability to the region, not less. The White House says that the only alternative to its JCPOA is war. No, it’s the Iran deal that invites a widening and increasingly vicious war, with America on the same side as the bloodthirsty, obscurantist regime in Tehran. Killing the Iran deal is the way to avoid war.

      “Fuel on the Fire” by Lee Smith in the Weekly Standard for August 10, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 45
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/fuel-fire_1001581.html

    • ShirleyRManley

      Google>>CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP
      ⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛

  • http://www.librarything.com/profile/Bretzky1 Brett Champion

    Anyone who thinks that a Congressional veto of this deal won’t lead directly to the end of international sanctions against Iran within one year at the most is simply deluding themselves. China, Russia, India, and the rest of the non-Western world will take that opportunity to blame the US for the failure of the deal and then will happily restart trading with Iran. The momentum that this deal has created toward plugging Iran back into the global trading network is just too great to overcome at this point.

    The only reason Iran would resume talks after that is that they really don’t have any intention of building nuclear weapons and they would just try to get something for nothing from the US.

  • Blackbeard

    Suppose, against all expectations, Congress overrides Obama’s inevitable veto and the deal is rejected. What will happen then?

    First, as Brett Champion noted, Russia, China and the rest of the world are already abandoning sanctions. This cannot be reversed by Congress.

    Second, Obama will use executive discretion, of which he has already demonstrated he has an infinite amount, to refuse to enforce any remaining U.S. sanctions or any other U.S. policy that would inconvenience Iran.

    And last, Obama will give full rein to his hatred of Israel, blocking weapons shipments, abandoning Israel at the UN, and generally letting Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations know that the U.S. Will have their back should they attack Israel.

    • JR

      I’d rather have that than bad Iran deal. Plus, if Obama is dealt a serious defeat, the lame duckedness of it all will be hard to just shake off.

  • Ellen

    How about a few new ideas, for a change of pace?

    1. The Ayatollah is about to die from metastatic prostate cancer, supposedly within a few months. Once that happens, there could be a giant power struggle in Teheran, as all factions seek to grab power. Eventually, the most brutish will probably win out, because that is always what happens in Muslim societies. This means the so-called Iranian moderates will be crushed, and the Iran Deal won’t be implemented on the Iranian end, regardless of how much Obama genuflects.
    a. However, this power struggle could go on for a good year or two, during which other interesting things will happen.

    2. Such as, the defeat of the Alawite/Shiite forces in Syria by a hodge-podge of Sunni Islamist militias plus the so-called Syrian moderates in the Southern Front. This will be a huge humiliation for both Iran and Obama, since they were counting on the incompetence and divisions among the Sunnis to allow them to make a side deal in Syria. Now, that will be impossible.

    3. Lebanon will finally be crushed under the weight of its Syrian refugees and perennial dysfunction between Sunni, Shiite and Christian citizens. This will lead to a free-for-all in that country.

    4. Meanwhile, the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in Northern Syria will declare independence in 2 distinct Kurdish states.

    5. Meanwhile, Turkey will intervene in Northern Syria to create a “moderate” Islamic Sunni state around Aleppo, which effectively becomes a Turkish protectorate within the former boundaries of Syria.

    6. And finally, Israel de facto (not de jure) annexes Area C of the West Bank, which contains 400,000 Jews and 50,000 Arabs.

    The end result of all this will be as the great poet wrote, “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”

  • Boritz

    TAI has made this such an easy decision. If there are no Republican alternatives to consider then a plan or plans must go forward.  All else is extraneous and argumentative.

  • Anthony

    Another perspective: “on the Sunday talk shows war hawks will fuss endlessly about the nightmare to come, as well as the weak-kneedness of the president and his delusional secretary of state, John Kerry (no one of note, however, will ask why the president’s past decisions to launch or continue wars in the Middle East were not greeted with at least the same sort of skepticism as his present efforts to forestall one). That being the case, don’t sweat the details of the July nuclear accord between the United States and Iran. What matters is that the calculus of power in the Middle East has just changed in significant ways.” (The balance of power in the Middle East just changed: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176028/

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service