Iran Nuclear Deal
Like most things Obama did, he fucked up negotiations with Iran. He signed a shitty deal, in the worst way possible, and Trump fixed it by wiping the slate clean and starting over, and Obama had his usual impotent tantrum over that. Obama didn't even require the Iranians to sign the deal, and he didn't ratify it through the senate (it was no treaty). While I'm not sure if throwing the whole deal away was the right move, it's easy to see why keeping wasn't, and why signing it was a disaster. And anyone that claims Trump hurt the U.S.'s credibility by not following the terms of a non-signed deal, that wasn't in our interests, is completely clueless about what all those words mean.
- 1 Details
- 1.1 We caught Iran lying in the terms of the deal
- 1.2 This Deal Never Should Have Been Signed
- 1.3 This deal was never a signed Treaty
- 1.4 The Deal Prevented Concerted Action
- 1.5 The Deal Was Never Approved By The Senate
- 1.6 Obama lied to Congress
- 1.7 Iran Has Gotten Intensely Aggressive Since The Deal
- 1.8 The Deal Did Not Deter The Quest For Nuclear Weapons
- 2 Conclusion
In business, there's something called "the opportunity costs of capital". The idea being that it's not only what you make on a deal, but what you could have made if you hadn't made the deal or made another deal. That's key to understanding the Iran deal.
Obama made a deal that paid them billions of dollars to continue their Nuclear enrichment (with slight caps on the rate, for 10 years), continue their missile development, continue their state sponsorship of terrorism in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and so on. Obama/Democrats/Media that claim we breached a commitment of the United States (or broke a deal) are liars or idiots that don't understand the Constitution, or they hope their bases don't.
Two and a half years ago, President Obama made a bad deal with Iran without support from Congress, and today President Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do so. American foreign policy makes lasting progress when a good deal is made by the President, approved by the Senate, and presented honestly to the American people. None of those things happened.
To borrow liberally from Ben Shapiro, the points are:
We caught Iran lying in the terms of the deal
Israel the other day caught Iran red-handed having lied as the basis of the Iran Nuclear deal with their repeated claims that they had no program, and understating what that program was. Any deal you make that was fertilized in lies, is not a deal made in good faith. It deserves to be torn up and start over... and the new deal must include steps for validation and contrition. (Before any apology can be accepted, it has to be made. Iran needs to admit they lied, before we can make a good faith deal with them)
This Deal Never Should Have Been Signed
If you assume that the absolute best deal that could me made, was made, then sure, there was no other choice -- but that's rarely the case. I negotiate contracts for a living, and my family worked with the State Dept quite a bit, I have a bit of a clue on this. Anyone that believes this was the best deal that we could have made, gets the bozo bit set. And anyone who recognizes this wasn't the best deal, realizes that sometimes you have to tear down a bad deal, to negotiate a better one. We'll have to see if a better one is created, but we know the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) stank-on-ice.
But we know that Iran lies before making the deal (many times). We know the Rouhani government is a terrorist government (not the moderates Obama lied that they were). We know that they have not lived up to the deal. And the deal itself had no prevention for missiles or terror funding, only a stalling tactic on warheads/testing (that they likely already developed) before they are given full permission to finish the nukes that we're letting them develop. Oh, and we had to pay them billions of dollars to do what they should have been doing. So it was paid extortion for a stalling tactic. Obama's out of office, enough kicking the can down the road, time to deal with it.
This deal was never a signed Treaty
I don’t care if people are for or against the Iran deal. Just don’t go full retard like NYT/Cohen just did . Just get the basic facts straight: America didn’t make a deal with Iran, Obama did. The Senate didn’t ratify it, and it was a behind the scenes scam, where the details weren’t even revealed to the American public until they leaked out (like billions of dollars in cash flown over, etc). So maybe you think a 10 year slow-down on centrifuges (with shoddy inspection processes — while Iran could continue to develop ballistic missiles and delivery systems), is worth giving up the leverage we had and paying them billions of dollars to continue terrorist sponsorship or not. There are some arguments that can be made either way (like something is better than nothing). But the facts are that walking away from this "deal" does nothing to harm Americas credibility.... it harms Obama’s legacy.
When Obama created this deal, he chose not to make a treaty or legal binding agreement in any way. He didn't even require the Iranians to sign it formally, and he never got it ratified through the Senate. So the U.S. didn't sign it, Obama did. Thus breaking it doesn't hurt America's legacy, only Obama's. Oh, and it helps to remember that Obama ignored many treaties he didn’t like before him like the Budapest Memorandum). Clinton and others agreed to defend Ukraine if they gave up Nuclear Weapons. On February 23, 1994, Russia invaded Crimea and this triggered the Budapest Memorandum terms... which Obama ignored. Then throughout 2014, Russia went on to invade and annex more of Ukraine, which again would trigger the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, and again Obama broke the terms of the treaty of his predecessor. Try to find articles in the NYT complaining about how Obama destroyed our global credibility with those acts. Anyone interested in talking truth about Americas credibility with regards to non-binding agreements, would have brought those up in this context. Those that do not (NYT and Cohen) are fake-news polemics looking to disinform their readers, rather that journalists trying to inform the public.
The Deal Prevented Concerted Action
The deal didn’t just remove sanctions on Iran -- it blocked America (and allies) from doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear forward motion: again opportunity costs. This burned down future opportunities, and it made Iran our ally in the deal, and neutered our allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc) who might have acted, had we not signed the deal.
The Deal Was Never Approved By The Senate
Like most things Obama did, he half-assed it, and never got the deal ratified by the Senate. That means it's not a deal between the U.S. and Iran, but just one between Obama and Iran. And Obama is back to being a loudmouthed nobody and an ex-president without any power.
Now there was an unconstitutional arrangement made with Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) to claim that this treaty wouldn't be like others. Instead of requiring 60 senators to ratify it, it would take 60 to repeal it. But that's not how the Constitution works. You don't get to change the terms just because you don't like them. So fuck that.
Obama lied to Congress
Iran Has Gotten Intensely Aggressive Since The Deal
Iran hasn't acted in good faith. Iran supported the increase in Syrian slaughter. Hezbollah has effectively taken over all of Lebanon. Yemen has devolved into Iranian-backed chaos. Hamas has re-armed with Iranian help. Iran has ratcheted up its terrorist programs.
If Iran valued the deal, they would be acting in good faith, even beyond the terms. They are doing the opposite. Once it became clear the U.S. was spineless and paid them to continue to develop their missiles and terrorist sponsorship, they continued to escalate those. And we have no idea what they're doing in the back rooms and hidden basements in a country 1/2 the size of Europe, so don't start the retarded bullshit that the IAEA will stop them, when they failed to stop North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, India, from getting the bomb. Their fecklessness is only exceeded by their political incompetence.
The Deal Did Not Deter The Quest For Nuclear Weapons
After Iraq War, Muammar Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program, knowing that there was a serious possibility that the United States would take action.
After the Iran nuclear deal, North Korea was emboldened and increased their Nuclear program, hoping to get the same kind of payoff that Iran got. Instead Trump stepped on them, hard, and is now negotiating for something a lot better than Obama or Clinton gave us.
Now only was the deal feckless and ineffective, but Obama going back and whining and trying to save it, with John Kerry violating the Logan Act, and an ex-president having a tantrum over his deal being revoked, tells you all you need to know. They cared more about the symbolism of a deal with our enemies (no matter what it cost us), over getting the best deal for the country they could of. Which answers the first question: did Obama get the best deal he could of. If not, then the deal deserves to be burned down.