I’m sure readers have read many articles and heard many media stories about the so-called nuke deal Iran made with the USA and other nations. Don’t be deceived. There is no deal on anything yet. What we saw was an impasse in the negotiations being passed off as a “framework” or “outline” of a deal which may or may not be reached by the end of June 2015. What the negotiators needed was a photo op and a press release to pretend they had actually reached an agreement. What they actually agreed to do was “punt” the decision three months down the road. However, from what can be gleaned from the articles and reports about the “framework” for an eventual deal, it appears the final “deal” will be an effort (to borrow a previously-used phrase) “to put lipstick on a pig.”
The first link, an article by columnist Jonah Goldberg, notes that “the room for further disagreements [are] vast,” and points out the glaring weakness that the eventual agreement may not even attempt to put limits on Iran’s ICBM program (which will eventually result in Iran having missiles to deliver nukes to Europe and the USA). The second link mentions the “stark differences” in the way the Obama administration and Iran already interpret what is in the “outline” of this tentative deal. The third link also notes the differences in opinion between the USA and Iran re: what is in the tentative deal, and adds that Obama wants a final agreement which will “skirt approval by Congress.” Obama obviously is almost desperate to make sure the US Senate, which the US Constitution specifies must approve treaties between the USA and other nations, has no say on the ultimate approval of the “deal.” Obama wants to negotiate this deal as if he were a king or autocrat. I think all the signers of the Constitution would agree that this nuke deal with Iran is a treaty without any doubt and that the Senate should vote on it. Given that it is a negotiated deal with a nation that still has crowds chanting “death to America” and is building a nuclear program and an ICBM program to deliver nukes to US soil, I’d say there is no doubt that this is a critically-important “treaty” the US Senate must approve. It could have existential meaning for the USA. The fourth link, an article by columnist Cal Thomas, has a shocking assertion. He states the Iranian Foreign Minister who negotiated the outline of this deal “accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress…” and that “the US is making claims that conditions were reached for the accord that Iran did not agree to.” For once, I’m willing to believe what the Iranians are saying. The Iranian Foreign Minister is all but saying that Obama, Kerry and Co. are lying to the American people and Congress about what’s in the deal to try and sneak it by them
From what I have seen of this prospective deal, it is a virtually complete surrender by the Obama administration to Iran’s radical mullahs. Reportedly, Iran does not have to dismantle any nuclear facilities, can keep perhaps 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium (needed for nuclear weapons), does not have to allow snap inspections by outside inspectors, etc. Furthermore, it does not have to release US citizens it is holding captive and doesn’t even need to renounce its declared national goal of “wiping Israel off the map!”
I’d say Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is right when he says this is a bad deal, and that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Please take the time to read the final link. It may be the most important one in this post. It reminds us that Obama was long comfortable listening to the anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish rants by his “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, in Chicago, and I also recall that same “pastor” was once quoted as saying “G-D America.” This indicates Obama is comfortable with anti-American rhetoric too. If I ever heard a speaker say that in any message, I’d walk out…immediately. Wouldn’t you? The link’s comments indicate that Obama is also seeking to paint Israel as the “bad guy” in the Mideast on the so-called “Two-State” solution to the Palestinian problem, even though the Israelis currently have no responsible Palestinian leader with whom to negotiate. By combining his efforts to paint Israel as the bad-guy in the Palestinian issue, Obama may be trying to isolate Israel on the Iran issue as well. Hmm. Obama may have a deliberate strategy at work to try and isolate the Israelis in world opinion wherever he can.
I’d like to point out a very glaringly-obvious fact about the “framework” for a future Iranian nuke deal. Since none of the regional nations most threatened by Iran’s nuclear program (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Jordan, and other Sunni Moslem nations) have been allowed to participate in the negotiations and surely will not be allowed to be signers of any final deal, these nations are not bound to abide by any of the terms of any Iranian nuke deal. Any or all of them may choose to take matters into their own hands and make sure Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons. If any future deal allows Iran any pathway to nuclear weapons, it is logical to expect that (A) many Mideast Sunni nations will initiate their own nuclear weapons programs and (B) these nations and/or Israel are far more likely to be forced into launching a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. A “bad deal” is more likely to lead to a large regional Mideast war, not avoid it.
Iran is a dangerous member of the prophesied latter-day, Gog-Magog alliance (Ezekiel 38-39). It is my opinion that Iran will not keep any agreement any way, so why bother to even negotiate one with it? Also, even if Obama succeeds in isolating Israel, Israel will have the Creator God guaranteeing its survival in the latter days (Zephaniah 2:1-10, Zechariah 12:1-7). Indeed, Zechariah 14 prophesies that it is when the Israelis/Jews are most in danger during a future war that the Creator God Divinely intervenes in human affairs to rescue not only “Judah” (the Jews/Israelis), but all mankind (Matthew 24:22).