Robert Tracinski:
What is President Obama’s deal with Iran really, essentially about? I just realized that John Kerry has been trying to tell us all along, and it’s only yesterday that he finally said it clearly enough to make it register.
In last week’s Senate testimony, he first established the theme, warning that if Congress doesn’t approve the deal, “we will have proven we’re not trustworthy.” Get that? We have a Secretary of State who conducted negotiations from the premise that we, not the Iranians, are the ones who have to prove we can be trusted.
But that wasn’t just a gaffe or an isolated observation. Kerry expanded on it in aninterview with Jeffrey Goldberg that was published yesterday:
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. “This”—a congressional rejection—”will be the ultimate screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
Have you ever seen a clearer case of Stockholm Syndrome, with Kerry so assiduously taking up the cause of his opponents in the negotiations?
Kerry also said that his chief Iranian interlocutor, the foreign minister, Javad Zarif, and Zarif’s boss, the (relatively) reformist president, Hassan Rouhani, would be in “serious trouble” at home if the deal falls through. Zarif, Kerry told me, explicitly promised him that Iran will engage with the United States and its Arab allies on a range of regional issues, should Congress approve the deal. “Zarif specifically said to me in the last two weeks, ‘If we get this finished, I am now empowered to work with and talk to you about regional issues.’” Kerry went on, “This is in Congress’s hands. If Congress says no, Congress will shut that down, shut off that conversation, set this back, and set in motion a series of inevitables about what would happen with respect to Iranian behavior, and, by the way, the sanctions will be over.”
On top of the incredible naiveté of believing Zarif’s assurances that Iran will suddenly become much nicer after the deal is signed (and we have lost all leverage), notice how fully he has bought into a perspective that could only be found in Iranian propaganda: that anything bad the Iranians do from now on will be our fault because we alienated them and failed to negotiate in good faith. As if the Iranian regime has not spent the last 35 years gleefully fanning the flames of conflict across the Middle East.
This warped, blame-America-first perspective is not just an argument Kerry is citing in support of the deal with Iran. It is the actual point of the whole deal.
Every negotiation with Iran in the past, and every public debate out it, has proceeded from the assumption that the Iranians are dangerous fanatics who need to be reined in, that they can’t be trusted and will have to make big concessions and reforms and agree to a lot of scrutiny before we welcome them back to the ranks of civilized nations.
But the idea behind this deal, and the theme of Kerry’s defense of it, is to get the United States to accept responsibility for causing conflict with Iran through our own belligerence and bad faith.
There is a lot of talk about how Kerry and Obama want this deal as part of their “legacy,” and the usual assumption is that this is about wanting awards and peace prizes, that it’s about accolades and ego trips. But there is another kind of legacy leaders seek, a far more important kind: the legacy of changing a whole process, changing the terms of the debate, and doing so in a way that programs their preferred policies into the system, making any alternative impossible.
This is the way in which President Obama is pursuing his legacy on global warming regulations. He knows that once the EPA establishes its new rules for power plants and adopts its long-term fantasy plan for an economy based on renewable energy, this will become the starting point for all future discussion. Any attempt by the next president to change it will face resistance from the EPA bureaucracy, who will seek to defend the established status quo.
Obama and Kerry accept (not offer, but ACCEPT) a terrible deal and everyone else has to figure out how to live with it so “we” won’t look bad.
What an bass-ackwards way to think.
I have to concur, Kerry and Obama are indeed “untrustworthy”.
You can’t trust a damn thing that comes out of their mouths.
The GOP still has offered no alternative other than no deal.
No deal means either military strikes that could lead to a potentially disastrous war with Iran, or doing nothing useful as Iran accelerates its nuclear program and acquires a weapon in short order. I suppose an even worse scenario might involve unsuccessful airstrikes, followed by ongoing warfare with a militarily powerful nation that could have a nuclear capability in a matter of a few months.
How is it that people cannot process this relatively simple information and come to the obvious conclusion?
@Greg: Obama destroyed the alternatives, giving them away without getting anything in return.
@Greg:
It’s not “the GOP’s” job to do so, you Constitutionally ignorant twit. That responsibility is specifically that of the executive branch. The GOP lead Congress’s responsibility is only to approve or disapprove of the deals the executive branch comes up with.
Insults seem to be your only response whenever you’re confronted with reality.
The Executive Branch has been doing its job. The State Department has negotiated an agreement that will reduce the number of Iran’s existing nuclear enrichment centrifuges from 20,000 to 5,000 and limit the number to 5,000 for a period of 10 years. The heavy water reactor at Arak which has the ability to produce plutonium will be modified to eliminate this capability. Iran’s substantial existing stockpiles of enriched uranium will be transferred out of the country. The UN will acquire inspection capabilities that can confirm all of this has actually happened. All of these benefits are greatly to our advantage—as opposed to the the absolutely nothing we get if the agreement is killed.
What has the republican-majority Congress been contributing to the process of governance? Congress seems to have completely lost sight of what its own part is. Congress doesn’t have responsibility for crafting and negotiating such agreements, but if they mount an all-out effort to scuttle the State Department’s best efforts as they are presently doing, they sure as hell had better be able to explain what the parameters of a realizable alternative might be. Otherwise they’re only sabotaging U.S. foreign policy, and throwing away any benefits the United States might realize in the process. An Iran that might get a bomb in 10 years is greatly preferable to an Iran that might get a bomb in 6 months.
If (I mean when we realize) Iran has broken its part of the ”plan,” (not a treaty) it gets the bomb.
If Iran is not recognized as breaking the ”plan” it still gets the bomb.
Question: When, during all of Iran’s getting the bomb will Obama call for war?
Answer: Never.
@Greg:
If we gave you “hurt-butt” you whiny-arsed twit, you have only yourself to blame. If you weren’t posting such ridiculous drivel, we would not feel a need to rub your nose in your idiocy. We will stop commenting on what a putz you are when you cease writing like one. Nor is it our fault that you too often prove how truly ignorant you are. Quit sniveling and study the damn subject under discussion before you jump in, and you might possibly stop coming across as the typical low information Democrat you have continually presented yourself as.
A very bad deal is not necessarily better than no deal. If the agreement is killed because of it being an exercise in stupidity, …well then so much the better. That, (as it should,) forces the Executive branch to go back to the table and negotiate a sensible deal that does not put America and it’s allies in potential danger.
I prefer to present the positions I have arrived at with the facts that I believe back them up. In this case, I believe what is gained from the deal is much better than where I think no deal at all will likely take us.
War with Iran could be a far bigger disaster for the United States than the war with Iraq, even if we are able to “win” it. Winning it could cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and ultimately accomplish little more than extending the power vacuum that ISIL and similar extremist groups are eager to exploit.
An intact and stable Iran is a foil to ISIL as Iraq was once a foil to Iran. We can talk to the Iranians. They’re not irrational people. We sure as hell can’t expect to talk to the likes of ISIL.
I’m not hurt by insults. I’m offended by stupidity and worried about its consequences. Ego politics is for people operating on the level of children.
@Greg:
What you presented was your second hand opinion based wholly on what was written in a political opinion commentary. Commentary and opinions are not fact.
Oh give up trying to pedal that amateurish propaganda BS. Just because the American people overwhelmingly reject the Executive branch’s suicide pact of a deal, doesn’t mean that the only other option is war. Has Obama declared to the world that if the deal doesn’t go through, that he intends to go to war with Iran? No, I didn’t think so.
Of course they are irrational. Iran is a radical Islamist controlled fascist regime They were killing their own people in the street for daring to speak out against the government. They have no more intention of keeping to the foolish deal of Obama’s amateurish state department, than they have of recognizing Israel’s right to exist. They said as much the very day after Kerry left the negotiation table with this “deal”. You Kerry and Obama are fools for trusting them to keep to a deal that Iran has already said is “broken.” Geeze Greggie, just how disingenuous (or stupid) are you that you completely ignore words of Iran’s Ayatollah declaring that they will not honor the conditions of the deal before the ink is even dry?
The main source of stupidity that we find here on FA is your “useful idiot” parroting of leftist political talking points. If you would bother to actually educate yourself on the real facts of an issue instead of just linking to leftist biased political sources and spouting Daily Kos talking points, maybe, just maybe, you might gain a little bit of credibility and respect. Otherwise you will always remain in our eyes the far-left brainwashed Greggie you have continually been. I do not respect anyone who twists the truth, lies, and tries to blow smoke up my butt. I respect you even less because you are so pathetically bad at it.
Given the same set of information, people who have learned to think for themselves often reach similar conclusions. Alternately, you can rely on sources like FOX News and be told what your conclusions and opinions should be.
Obama has made no such declaration. The danger of a war with Iran can be found on the right. The same people who advocated for the invasion of Iraq and learned nothing whatsoever from the disastrous consequences are now making the same noises about Iran, with no more thought about what could result for the United States than before. The politicians they inform aren’t saying a word about alternatives to the deal they’re trying to kill, because if they stated them out loud they wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining the presidency.
Given the facts and time frame, any intelligent person can work out what will likely follow if the negotiated deal does not go through: Unless prompt military action is taken to prevent it, Iran will have the ability to assemble nuclear weapons within a year or two at most. (For the time frames, I am in fact relying on the opinions of experts who have analyzed all that is known about the Iranian nuclear program. The Israelis have suggested the shorter end of the time frame. No layman or politician is equipped to make a better guess than the experts.)
The thinking of American politicians on the right is very much in sympathy with that of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. So ask yourself, What would “Bibi” do? Then think about what the full consequences of airstrikes against Iran might be. I’ve thought about them and am glad that our current president is in no hurry to go there. I can see military action against Iran as a setup for our nation’s final economic and geopolitical catastrophe. No one laid the trap—it’s a product of history and technology—but a more cunning trap couldn’t be deliberately contrived.
The right attacks the person when they have no answer to the argument. I’m parroting nothing. I’m presenting a clear position and stating the reason that I hold it as simply as I can. I see no flaws in the logic.
I would be delighted if someone on the right could show us a way out of the Iranian nuclear conundrum that’s better than the current deal, which has obvious benefits but is not a perfect solution. It’s imperfect in that it delays rather than permanently prevents. Unfortunately I see no reasonable present course that permanently prevents. I think if the right had one, they’d probably be talking about it.
Greggie Goebbels remains an idiot. He doesn’t have a singular, original thought pass through his brain. He simple parrots what the supporters of Obama, and his head traitor, John Kerry, spew.
No better classic example of “useful idiot” is there than Greggie Goebbels, Obama’s FA mouthpiece.
Do you have any thoughts about the points that were made, or did you just come here looking for a cracker?
Killing the deal has specific consequences: Either you take military action in the near future, or Iran gets nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.
Alternately, accepting the deal has specific benefits: A drastic reduction in the number of centrifuges, the removal of most of the enriched uranium Iran has produced to date, and the ability to confirm that these things have actually happened.
I know which I choose. If the right has different logic and some other alternative, perhaps they should tell America what they are. This would certainly be the proper time.
@Greg:
There is never just simply two options. But that is the talking point the worst president and worst Secretary of State are putting out.
Do you remember a man named John Kennedy? He had options with Cuba and Russia. Remember that, Greggie Goebbels? Did Kennedy go to war with Cuba or Russia? No. But he wasn’t willing to take military force off the table, was he?
There can be other options beside the horrible plan worked out by Lurch or all out war.
You, in your idiocy, assume that Iran will be forthright in that deal. They will not. They have already said that the U.S. cannot send any inspectors to Iran. And they are touting how they have forced the U.S. to concede to all their demands.
I can’t believe a grown man, like you, is so brain dead.
@Greg:
You choose what you are told to choose by your handlers. You have no original thought of your own.
@retire05, #15:
None of which you or any politician you support have bothered to mention during the course of the discussion, I notice.
Republicans are putting forward no alternatives because they have no alternatives. The reality of the situation is what was stated in post #13. All republicans have is their obsession with monkey wrenching anything and everything the Obama administration undertakes. Their obsession has reached the point where they have become mentally unbalanced. The deal has clear benefits. No deal has none. No deal has predictable negative consequences.
@Greg:
It is not my place to work out foreign policy agreements. I am n ot a foreign policy expert, but here’s a news flash: NEITHER ARE YOU.
You are simply a parrot.
Are you sure about that? You can say, with certainty, that Obama consulted Republicans and they told him they have no alternatives? You’re so full of shit it has ceased to be humorous.
How do you account for the fact that one of Obama’s biggest supporters, Chuck Schumer, is dead set against this Iranian agreement?
Stop being a useful idiot.
@Greg:
Well, not NOW. This absolutely worthless administration has specifically seen to that.
@retire05, #17:
If you don’t believe you know enough to about an issue to voice an intelligent opinion, perhaps you should stop insulting people who do have opinions and can clearly state their reasons for holding them.
Chuck Schumer has put his own domestic political calculation ahead of an important geopolitical calculation, in my opinion. If he’s completely sincere about what he says, then he and I are in disagreement.
I’m not the one who keeps talking while saying nothing. I’ve said what I needed to say. You may continue squawking about parrots for as long as you wish. It will take you 21 more useless posts to push this discussion into Older Comments. You’d better hop to it.
@Greg:
Oh, I am willing to listen to the opinions of learned, intellectual foreign policy experts, but you’re not in that category. All you can do is repeat what your handlers say.
I have no love for Schumer. But I would warrant a guess he has more knowledge about the Iranian agreement than you do, and he is against it. He’s not the only Democrat who is against it.
But I’m sure that your information sources (i.e. Huffington Post/DailyKos) think they have more expertise than Schumer. And in typical Democratic Party fashion, left wingers are now demanding that the DNC no longer back Schumer.
Off to the Land of the Shunned, Schumer. You are failing to follow instead of trying to lead.
Then we are even since you consistently say nothing.
Ah, Greggie Goebbels, you are the absolute King Of Useless Posts.