What You Always Wanted To Know About Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal (But Were Afraid To Ask)

Political Realities ^ | 12/05/13 | John Bascom

[LD Jackson]

Just the mention of Iran is enough to send chills down your spine. Remember the hostage crisis and the ensuing political dismemberment of Jimmy Carter? Then there was the Iran-Contra scandal where Reagan-era officials secretly provided embargoed arms in a failed exchange for hostages, and planned to funnel cash from the sale to support the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. Iran, of course, double-crossed us in the end. And let's not forget the oil embargo of the 1970s led by Iran through its OPEC cronies. It paralyzed the American economy for a while. Or the overthrow of the Shah by an Ayatollah resulting in a radical Muslim nation ruled by Sharia law. How about undermining Iraq democracy efforts by fomenting Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence there. This lovable group recently sentenced a Christian to death for…well…spreading Christianity. And their undisguised mission is "Death to America" and the destruction of our closest ally in the region, Israel.

It is with these fine, trusty souls that President Obama chose to roll out the trophy of his administration's foreign policy, the loudly and proudly triumphed "Iran Nuclear Deal." It was billed by the administration as a foreign relations coup, a stroke of genius that avoided yet another Mideast war and finally, against all odds, got the Iranians to agree to end their long-denied nuclear weapons program.

Now, I agree that sounds good. But few of the details have really been revealed and scrutinized. After reviewing the available information, this is a summary of what the deal does and does not do:

It DOES require that Iran…

• pause for six months uranium enrichment above a concentration of 5% (a level suitable for fuel but not for weapons)
• dilute weapons grade uranium concentrations (that Iran for years has denied having) to 5% or below
• not install additional enrichment centrifuges (they have added tens of thousands over the last several years, which they may keep)
• not activate an already largely completed reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium
• provide international inspectors some access to centrifuge, mine, mill and reactor areas

It ALLOWS Iran to…

• access foreign exchange reserves previously frozen under sanctions, resume certain oil exports, and resume imports of medical and agricultural products collectively valued at $7 billion over the six months life of the agreement

It DOES NOT require Iran to…

• halt uranium enrichment
• destroy stockpiles of uranium
• dismantle its plutonium producing reactor
• destroy its vast and newly expanded array of operating centrifuges
• halt research or collaboration with North Korea and Pakistan on other aspects of bomb and missile technology
• pledge nonaggression toward Israel or others in the region
• give any of the money back if it defaults
• do ANYTHING beyond six months time

In a nutshell, Iran has agreed to take a breather for six-months in exchange for $7 billion. If they break the deal, they don't have to give any of the money back and sanctions will be returned in all likelihood only to roughly where they are today. Iran most probably was out of money anyway to continue the program with much vigor, and this will arguably replenish the coffers for round two.

Why would Obama agree to such a thing? Probably for the same reason British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously appeased the Nazis in 1938 with the Munich Accord to win "peace in our time," a phrase that has lived as a mockery of diplomatic cowardice. The Munich Accord, of course, empowered Hitler to start World War II. It seems Obama fears a military confrontation with Iran more than he does a nuclear Iran. And, if there was ever a doubt, everyone—including Iran—now knows it.

President Obama, naturally, says his motives are to slow things down, build trust, and allow cooler heads to prevail while encouraging the new Iranian president to work with the international community. Given the history with Iran, can he really be so naïve?

I think his motives must be viewed in the context of Benghazi and ObamaCare. With the former, he proved it was more important to avoid damage during the home stretch of his re-election campaign than to protect our Foreign Service people in peril. ObamaCare on the other hand may be his Waterloo and he seeks a success story, a feather in his cap to capture headlines and distract the public. If any doubted it before, he has over the past year repeatedly shown his stripes as a gutter Chicago politician who will do anything to hold political power and advance a leftist agenda.

Obama's influence is now waning; his grip on the Senate in jeopardy in 2014. A solidly Republican congress would doom his reign to failure, its sole achievements being his discredited stimulus package and a health insurance bill debacle. A drowning man will clutch at a straw, and the Iran nuclear deal is his. We can only hope the aftermath does not parallel that of Chamberlain's Munich Accord.

[stonehouse01]

Can he really be so naive?

No - Obama is Muslim and is helping Iran on purpose.

[Pearls Before Swine]

No - Obama is Muslim and is helping Iran on purpose.

Even Muslims can't serve two worldly masters--bowing to the Saudi king and groveling to the Iranian Mullahs has to produce some cognitive dissonance.

[Louis Foxwell]

It is unlikely Obama has the perspicacity to know the fdifference between an Iranian mullah and a Saudi king.

[Venturer]

Obama is a Muslim and John Kerry is a Traitor.

It’s as simple as that.