Iran's Nuclear Program - Deal Or No Deal?

Political Realities ^ | 11/24/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

News coming out of Geneva and Washington, D.C. tells us of a major breakthrough regarding Iran's nuclear program. According to what we are being told by the Obama administration and the Iranians, a deal has been reached to make sure Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. As can be expected, the Obama administration is touting the agreement, saying it cuts off the most likely paths Iran would take, if it wanted to acquire a nuclear weapon. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told his nation of the agreement on national television, saying the world has recognized Iran's nuclear rights. Israel is understandably worried about its safety. The bus I mentioned in my earlier post (linked below) on this issue is getting closer and Obama has the pedal to the metal.

Here are the rough terms of the agreement.

Fox News - Under the terms of the agreement, which concluded days of negotiations in Geneva, Iran committed to halt enrichment above a 5 percent threshold and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich uranium above that threshold.

Iran is also required to neutralize its stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and halt progress on its enrichment capacity. In return, the six world powers (the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia), have agreed to not impose any new sanctions, suspend sanctions on certain sectors of Iran's economy, and potentially unfreeze $4.2 billion in revenue from oil sales if Iran meets other conditions.

A White House statement also said Iran's nuclear program will be subject to "increased transparency and intrusive monitoring."

There is one other piece of information that you need to know. The agreement is only a six-month deal. It supposedly gives Iran and the rest of the major powers in the world to come to a longer lasting agreement. Having said that, is this agreement the real deal or not? My first inclination is to say no deal. Here's why I believe that.

First of all, President Obama is touting this agreement as a deal with teeth. He has already said the lessening of sanctions is reversible, should Iran not live up to its end of the bargain. I can't help but wonder which lessening of sanctions he means. This agreement or the lessening of sanctions he approved earlier? How much more can we lessen the sanctions? It appears we have already weakened them considerably.

Second, President Obama seems to believe this is a new day in relations between America and Iran. Ever since Hassan Rouhani was elected President of Iran, Obama has bent himself over backwards to be accommodating to the man. It is no secret that he wants to make a deal with Iran. It would bolster what he believes is the success of his foreign policy. There's just one little detail he leaves out of the equation. Hassan Rouhani was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator before he was elected President. As such, he made no bones about how he had no problem lying to the West, if it furthered his country's chances of becoming a nuclear power. He made it a practice to string his fellow negotiators along to give Iran more time to further their nuclear program.

Did I mention that the deal reached with Iran is only a six-month agreement? It can not be stressed enough. This is a short-term agreement and it is likely designed to give Iran more time to further the agenda they have for their nuclear enrichment. For President Obama, John Kerry, or any other American to believe otherwise is naive. And therein lies the main problem I have with Obama's foreign policy.

The man is naive when it comes to countries like Iran. He wants so badly for his foreign policy to be seen as successful, he overlooks the obvious flaws in how he is proceeding. If he really trusts Iran to follow through on this agreement, he is past naive.He has reached a level of stupidity we have not seen from the White House since Jimmy Carter.

[Iron Munro]

It's too bad President Utopia Obama isn't as tough with
his muslim terrorist pals as he is with American patriots.

[Dalberg-Acton]

I suppose the Senate need not “advise and consent” (ratify) since the US Constitution clearly defines the Presidents “deal making” powers. </sarc>