Iran

John Kerry Defends Iran Nuke Deal in Congress: Opponents Want to Talk About Everything Else

Complaining that Iran is being Iran isn't much of an argument.

|

State

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today along with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, to answer questions about the nuclear deal struck between Iran, the U.S., and five other countries. Kerry and the other members of the Obama administration continued to push the line that the deal, while not perfect, was the best option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The deal includes inspections regimes and mechanisms for various sanctions to come back into play if Iran is found to have reneged on the deal. The deal is meant to bring Iran back into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency is supposed to ensure Iran abides by the rules of that treaty. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Critics in Congress largely attacked Iran's anti-U.S. policies in general  rather than the specifics of the deal struck between Iran and six other countries. That line of attack, however, supports the idea that the deal is the best option for preventing, or delaying, a nuclear-armed Iran. Critics of the deal don't have any other options to suggest. President Obama suggested the only option other than a deal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was a military campaign. Obama neglected the option of "doing nothing" and letting regional powers sort out their own issues with Iran, but he is essentially right. Critics of the deal who insist Iran will get a nuclear bomb anyway ought to articulate what alternative they support. The public remains "war weary," so understandably critics of the deal don't want to talk about that.

But the focus on Iran's anti-U.S. policies is unhelpful, and is akin to if critics of the deal in Iran pointed to U.S. support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war as a reason not to trust the United States.  A basic understanding of history isn't needed. Even today, the U.S. supports the People's Mujahadeen of Iran (MEK), a Marxist Islamist group the U.S. formerly classified as a terrorist group. MEK's goal is the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Pointing to Iranian animosity toward the U.S. as a reason not to negotiate with Iran, while ignoring the history of U.S.-Iranian relations that might have contributed to that animosity, is disingenuous at best.  Even Kerry can fall into this trap. When Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamanei , said that Iranian interests in the Middle East remaned "180 degrees" opposed to America's, Kerry called the statement "disturbing." But it's a reflection of reality. American and Iranian interests were largely opposed before negotiations, it would be unrealistic to expect that after striking one deal, all of this would change.

The Obama administration isn't the only one facing opposition to the deal at home—so is the Iranian government. Just as U.S. negotiators had to repudiate some "red lines" in order to make a deal happen, so did Iranian negotiators. It's certainly not proof of a good deal, but it is evidence that the deal isn't one-sided, that one side didn't get anything while the other side got everything. Congressional Republicans, especially, are making a big thing out of opposing the Iran deal. Speaker John Boehner vowed to do whatever it takes. But it's too late for that. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, made the task of getting the deal approved by Congress easier. Congress has 60 days to approve or reject a deal—if they fail to vote, as Congress sometimes does, the deal will be considered approved. If Congress rejects the deal, President Obama will have the ability to veto their decision. All of this comes from legislation passed by Congress. Congress, on its own accord, handicapped itself in this manner. It's why complaints from members of Congress that the Obama administration took the deal to the UN before bringing it to Congress were particularly disingenuous—part of the Iran deal, in fact, was that the deal would go to the UN first. The UN, of course, doesn't have the authority to lift sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress. That it's possible to get the sanctions lifted without a specific vote of Congress is the work of Congress and the mechanisms it created in the Iran Review Act. When members of Congress, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), say Obama is showing contempt for Congress by going to the UN first, that's not accurate. Instead, as often is the case with Congress' role in foreign policy, the legislative body is showing contempt for itself.

NEXT: Despite All the Panic, Millennial Teens Have Much Less Sex Than Their Elders Did

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. John Kerry sucks.

    Iran sucks.

    Going to war sucks.

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Yeah, Obama sucks.

    2. From what I’ve heard his arrogance is only surpassed by his stupidity.

  2. The Republicans need to just step back and say Obama is the Democrats’ problem not theirs. Every Republican is going to vote against this deal. If it passes it will be because the Democrats want it to pass.

    The fact is that without a veto proof majority in Congress much less enough votes for impeachment, the Republicans cannot stop Obama from doing anything without Democratic help. So whatever crazy, unpopular and destructive shit Obama does is the Democrats’ problem. If they want to stop him, they can do it. They are the ones who sold him to the country and they are the ones who hold the power to control him, not Republicans.

  3. Even today, the U.S. supports the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran (MEK), a Marxist Islamist group the U.S. formerly classified as a terrorist group. MEK’s goal is the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

    We never learn, do we? We never learn.

    1. I met the MEK once. They are nice people and have a couple of female commanders who are the most unbelievably powerful and sexy women I have ever seen. All they want to do is kill Iranians. Is that so bad?

      1. It’s the “Marxist Islamist” part I’m worried about.

        1. Sure. But that is Iran’s problem. They really don’t have a problem with us. Their beef is with Iran. Even if they took over, which they won’t, I can’t see them being a threat to anyone except other Iranians.

          1. But that is Iran’s problem. They really don’t have a problem with us.

            Again, I’m sure Charlie Wilson was telling Regan just that, back in 1984 about the brave Afghani mujihadeen.

            1. And he was right. They were the first people Taliban put up against the wall.
              Seriously, Taliban was a post-war creation of Pakistani Intelligence. Why does everyone keep blaming the US for them?

              1. Balderdash and poppycock! The roots of the Taliban can be traced all the way back to the original founding of the Deobandi movment against the British Raj. (The Taliban are doctrinaire Deobandis). Yes, Ahmad Shah Massoud was friendly to us as he knew what side his toast was buttered on, but the Islamist core that formed the Taliban in the early 90s were always a large percentage of the mujihadeen who fought the Soviets. How do you think Mullah Omar lost his eye?

            2. What Pan said, The Mujahedin were always and still are our allies. They ended up as the Northern Alliance. The US never armed the Taliban nor Bin Ladin. I don’t understand why people continue to believe the lie that they did.

              1. Hollywood.

              2. I will say, HM is right that US shouldn’t be supporting a Marxist-Islamist movement, even if they are Kurds. In fact, US should look towards their operations in Serbia in 2000s for blueprint. Possibly too late now that sanctions are gone, though.

    2. Marxist Islamist? Really? What kind of mental contortions does that require?

      1. Stupidity is its own justification.

      2. Similar to Liberation theology, perhaps?

        Oooh, maybe that’s how you work around bans on music, sex or alcohol? Thesis “alcohol is forbidden”. Anti-thesis “alcohol tastes good”. Synthesis “Islam is part of society, and society evolves in accordance with dialectic materialism. Hence, alcohol is not forbidden if person taking it is evolved enough.”

        Marxist dialectic – there is nothing it can’t do.

    3. I don’t want these MEKicans in the good ol US of A!

  4. The only reasonable criticism of the deal that I have heard was summed up as follows.

    Obama/Kerry should have held out longer because Iran did not want to be negotiating with their successors. By stalling, the US would have gotten some more concessions as Iran became nervous.

    Other than that, most everything else has been “We can’t trust them!”, “Iran is evil!”. Which, if that is the case, we should just go ahead and invade them now if we don’t want them to have the bomb. We won’t do that, so it’s mostly political posturing and bluster.

    1. The criticism is the deal gets us nothing and in no way guarantees or really even does anything to prevent Iran from getting nukes and in return releases $150 billion in Iranian assets and also allows them to buy missile technology with this new found money. To put it into perspective, Iran only has an $800 billion economy.

      So in return for nothing, we are allowing them to legally buy ICBM technology, continue the nuclear program and giving them a one time case gift equal to a bit less than ONE FIFTH of their GNP.

      Yeah that is a hell of a deal Lee. The only people who think that is a bad idea are just people who hate Obama or want to bomb Iran.

      1. Iran was also allowed to continue holding US citizens hostage with absolutely no consideration given to demanding their release.

        1. That is because Obama doesn’t give a fuck about Americans or anyone but himself.

        2. Didn’t you see Obama demanding their release the other day on TV?

          Probably would have been good to do that as part of negotiating the deal, rather than after the deal was already done. “This is how they negotiate in the Bizarro world”, as Mr Seinfeld said.

          1. God what an insulting piece of shit he is.

      2. It’s the most intrusive inspection regime ever created. Sanctions were no longer an option because the rest of the partners were not going to be on board with that.

        I’m not saying it’s the best deal they could have gotten. I’m saying that the current sanctions were not going to stand up anymore and a new deal had to be struck. The alternative at this point is to go to war to guarantee that they will never have nukes.

        And yes, most, not all, of the criticism I have heard has been empty campaign season bullshit.

        1. It’s the most intrusive inspection regime ever created.

          So what? That is just a talking point. What does “most intensive” even mean? The bottom line is the Iranians still have their nuclear program, still have the ability to enrich uranium and still have sites that are not subject to inspection, and still have ultimate control of how and when those inspections are done.

          The whole thing is a sham and everyone knows it. And I don’t know if the sanctions will work or not. But I do know giving them $150 billion dollars and the ability to buy missile technology is an epically stupid idea.

        2. It’s the most intrusive inspection regime ever created.

          Please tell me you’re joking. The Russkies inspect our old silos every two weeks to verify our compliance with START/SALT. This “agreement” doesn’t even hold a candle to that level of rigor.

          1. Please tell me you’re not making an equivalence between a treaty trying to prevent the development of weapons and a disarmament treaty. The appropriate comparisons would be with any other agreement negotiated under the NPT.

            1. Funny, Obama used this analogy between US-Soviet treaties and this one when justifying this current disaster.

            2. There go the goal posts.

              MOST INTRUSIVE EVAR!!!!! erodes so quickly to “most intrusive out of the half dozen agreements under NPT”.

            3. How is it not analogous? Inspections are inspection no matter what they are looking for.

        3. I’m not saying it’s the best deal they could have gotten. I’m saying that the current sanctions were not going to stand up anymore and a new deal had to be struck. The alternative at this point is to go to war to guarantee that they will never have nukes.

          We could at least not released Iran’s frozen assets and kept the sanctions going from our side. This deal is utterly worthless. Everybody knows Iran is going to violate it as much as they please. No deal at all would have been superior.

        4. It’s the most intrusive inspection regime ever created.

          Maybe. I couldn’t say.

          From what I have seen, though, it requires advance notice and allows Iran to deny access.

          So, its may be the most intrusive EVAR, but its still worthless.

          1. It’s about as intrusive as my policy vis-a-vis my cellphone and my girlfriend. She has the privilege to ask to go through my text messages any time she wishes, and I have the privilege to tell her to piss off every time.

          2. So, its may be the most intrusive EVAR, but its still worthless.

            Ultimately, I agree with that. None of the big NPT deals have ever worked. The question at hand, is what is the alternative when Russia and China are no longer supportive of current sanctions? The economic incentives at play are huge.

            1. How about “do nothing and don’t give Iran $50B to help fund their nuclear weapons program”?

              1. So if current sanctions are unsustainable because China and Russia won’t go along, what penalties will occur when Iran is caught cheating on this deal? Will they actually enforce any sort of penalties for cheating?

  5. I haven’t heard a good argument as to why we should have negotiated with Iran over this in the first place. The sanctions were making it very difficult for Iran to a.) pursue it’s Nuclear weapon making abilities and b.) continue to fund the various extremist orgs causing mayhem in the ME. Now that the deal is about to be made both of those things are going away (please don’t bother arguing this deal will stop Iran from developing a nuke, it does nothing of the sort and there are far too many ways for Iran to say “FUCK YOU” to inspections so as to make the deal all but worthless).

    Was there some kind of deadline we were coming up on or something?

    1. The Obama Legacy deadline.

    2. Yes. The end of Obama’s presidency, and thus a chance to craft his legacy.

    3. The end of partner support for the sanctions.

      1. I don’t buy this. Citation that the other nations were about to bail on sanctions?

        1. And, going forward, the impossibility of bringing back sanctions will be used to justify continuing with the deal, even when the flagrant violations come to light.

        2. It’s never been easy to keep Russia and China on board with sanctions.

  6. Reason is missing the real Libertarian issue here. Whatever you think of this deal, it is a treaty and should be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Obama has negotiated a treaty without any input from Congress and is using the UN and pure contempt to tell the Congress he is binding the US and there is nothing they can do about it.

    It would be nice if Reason would bother to notice the stark illegality of this whole process.

    1. That would be true if the Republicans hadn’t decided to run another version of failure theater with the Corker bill that essentially neutered the treaty approval power.

      Unless someone with balls like Rand or Cruz takes this to SCOTUS the Congressional treaty power is a moot point.

      1. It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty. It doesn’t negate any congressional laws, just ends previous executive actions.

        The alternative to the Corker bill was to let Obama play his infamous “catch me if you can” game.

        The Corker bill also has no influence on the Senate’s treaty ratification powers in the Constitution. WTF? How could a simple bill override the constitution?

        1. It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty.

          An agreement between the US and a foreign country IS a treaty. Its pretty definitional.

          Nowhere does it say an agreement isn’t a treaty unless negates congressional laws.

          And, no, a bill can’t override the Constitution. But, it can give Congress cover to abdicate its responsibilities.

          1. If it doesn’t negate laws, it’s never going to butt up against congressional authority. Congress can’t force Obama to keep the sanctions going. Obama is only agreeing not to do something he has the sole power to decide not to do.

            1. If it doesn’t negate laws, it’s never going to butt up against congressional authority.

              Well, other than the authority to approve treaties, of course.

    2. Not that I agree with it, given the language of Art. II, but didn’t SCOTUS determine in Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation that the President has plenary powers in foreign affairs?

    3. Which means this “treaty” will only be good for the next year and a half, anyway. Of course a lot of damage can be done in that time.

    4. “Obama has negotiated a treaty without any input from Congress and is using the UN and pure contempt to tell the Congress he is binding the US and there is nothing they can do about it.”

      ^This x 1000

      It would be nice if more than just Reason would take note. The next president can just ignore this deal and say it was illegal and thus not binding. That is what happens when you throw away the rule of law and become a tin-pot dictatorship.

  7. “Critics of the deal who insist Iran will get a nuclear bomb anyway ought to articulate what alternative they support.”

    Most of the critics I’ve heard have said they wanted at least to continue with sanctions until Iran grants more concessions. Have you not been paying attention? Why are you using the same rhetoric that Dems used during the Obamacare debates: no matter what Reps offered in response, Dems always said the Reps hadn’t said anything.

    Obama’s choice between this shitty deal and WARRR!!! was always a false one.

    1. This shitty deal is whats going to lead us into war. We’re putting ourselves in the same position we were in when Iraq had a WMD program, and we all know how that ended.

      Doing absolutely nothing would have been superior to this deal. Why do people always act like “do nothing” is never an option?

    2. “Critics of the deal who insist Iran will get a nuclear bomb anyway ought to articulate what alternative they support.”

      Ah, yes, the old “we must do something” routine.

      Guess what? A lot of times, you are better off with the status quo than with “this is something, we must do this.”

  8. Complaining that Iran is being Iran isn’t much of an argument.

    Actually it is, considering that the deal is relying on the honor system to guarantee compliance.

    The deal is meant to bring Iran back into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Just like Obamacare is meant to improve the health care system.

    But the focus on Iran’s anti-U.S. policies is unhelpful, and is akin to if critics of the deal in Iran pointed to U.S. support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war as a reason not to trust the United States.

    Of course they shouldn’t trust the United States, or any country for that matter. They should insist on verification of our compliance and we should do the same. The Russians inspect our nuclear facilities 26 times a year to make sure we’re complying with START etc., and I don’t see us acting all insulted that they don’t trust us.

    1. Yeah, exactly. Whatever happened to “trust but verify”? It’s the verification process that is most important.

    2. But the US is different. We are the source of all problems in the world and can never be trusted whereas every other country, including and especially Iran, can be trusted.

      This is what the Reason writers actually believe. They are actually that stupid.

    3. That last sentence is so idiotic, it boggles the mind. Just because they have all of these anti-US policies and have attacked US interests and kidnapped US citizens has nothing to do with whether we can trust them. Even mentioning this is just unhelpful.

      God these people are fucking stupid.

      1. Look, John, keep this up and we’ll have to escalate from “unhelpful” to “problematic”!

  9. But the focus on Iran’s anti-U.S. policies is unhelpful

    Is this supposed to be a comedy piece? Seriously, how does anyone write that sentence with a straight face?

    It’s why complaints from members of Congress that the Obama administration took the deal to the UN before bringing it to Congress were particularly disingenuous?part of the Iran deal, in fact, was that the deal would go to the UN first.

    So the fact that it is in the deal, that Obama made, makes it okay? Yeah, Obama made a deal that tells the country and the Congress to go fuck themselves and there is nothing they can do about it.

    The UN, of course, doesn’t have the authority to lift sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress. That it’s possible to get the sanctions lifted without a specific vote of Congress is the work of Congress and the mechanisms it created in the Iran Review Act.

    Yes. It was a cynical ploy to make sure the Democrats get blamed for this debacle. And that law is unconstitutional. Congress has no power to give away its constitutional duties like that. No matter how cynical political calculation of them doing that, that still doesn’t make it illegal or Obama any less a party to it or any less responsible for making a horrible and illegal agreement.

    1. It was a cynical ploy to make sure the Democrats get blamed for this debacle.

      Seriously? Fuck, it’s working almost as well as Obamacare debacle.

      God, they are not only Stupid Party, they actually think they are the Machiavellian Party. Now I understand people who want to keep them out of power at all costs.

      1. Obama was originally going to veto the Corker bill but had to back down, probably due to worries that he might drop below the 34 senators necessary to keep him in power.

      2. They are not the stupid party. They are certainly the cowardly and cynical party. But they are not stupid.

        And think about it. If this thing had gone to the Senate like it should, it would have died and the Democrats would have blamed everything bad that happened on the big mean Republicans killing Obama’s deal that was the last and best hope for peace. Since we can never live the counter factual of the deal being approved, Democrats would have been able to lie and pretend this was a great deal that would have stopped Iran from getting nukes. And if it hadn’t died, it would have been approved with Republican votes making it a “bipartisan” no one gets any blame deal.

        The Agreement Review Act totally fucked the Democrats. It guarantees that the deal if it is approved will be approved without a single Republican vote, just like Obamacare. And that will leave them holding the bag for when Iran gets the bomb. If they kill it, it will be with Democratic votes making the whole thing bi-partisan. Either way the Republicans are off the hook. And Obama doesn’t give a fuck, he just wants his legacy.

        I can’t believe the Democrats in Congress signed up for it. Obama is fucking them so badly. And they are likely to let him do it and end up taking the party right over a cliff.

        1. The Dem strategy is to let the senators who are retiring (eg Harry Reid) or from hardcore blue states, plus Bernie Sanders, provide the 34 votes to back up Obama, leaving the 11 most vulnerable Dems and the other two independents (King & Liebermann) free to vote against it.

          We’ll see if it works.

          1. I think that will work to get it approved. The problem is when this thing goes tits up and Iran gets the bomb and they will, the entire party will end up being blamed and discredited for it. It won’t do them any good to blame it on mean old Harry Reid.

            Most of the actual people who voted for Obamacare are no longer in Congress. That doesn’t, however, keep Obamacare from being a political disaster for them.

            Obama is doing grave and potentially fatal damage to the Democratic party. If Hillary doesn’t win in 2016, they are going to be totally out of power. And worse still, they have more Democrats up for re-election in 2018 off years than the Republicans do. If they end up totally out of power, who is to say the Progs don’t go insane and run off to the Green Party and the whole thing just falls apart?

            1. The problem is when this thing goes tits up and Iran gets the bomb and they will, the entire party will end up being blamed and discredited for it.

              That certainly worked in 2006 and 08 as every Republican was punished for Bush’s inadequacies. But the big diff this time will be that the media is not on the side of that narrative.

              1. The Republicans control seven out of every ten state Legislatures and have gone from 40 votes to 55 in the Senate and to the largest majority they have had in the House since the 20s. The Democrats have been punished severely for Obamacare. They just have been able to cover that fact up by keeping Obama in the White House and having him just declare himself dictator. If they don’t hold the White House in 2016, they will be completely out of power. And if they end up taking the blame for this, they will end up being out of power in even blue states.

                1. It would take a major catastrophe for the Dems not to get the presidency in 2016. They just have to win the blue states plus 23 electoral votes. Florida alone would do the trick.

                  1. I think you are wrong about that. Those states are only “blue” because they have voted that way the last two elections. They can and do change color.

                    I think it is going to take a catastrophe for them to win the White House. They have no credible candidate other than Hillary. And Hillary is a terrible candidate. It is going to be virtually impossible for her to reassemble the Obama coalition. She won’t get 95% of the black vote and won’t get anything like the record black turnout Obama got. Meanwhile, she is in even worse shape with white voters.

                    Really it is a turnout issue. You say the Democrats are going to win all of these states for sure. Yet, the Republicans won state wide elections in all of them in 10 and 14. So the question is what does the turnout look like. Maybe it will look like it did in 12 but I doubt it. I can’t see Hillary generating anything like the enthusiasm Obama did. It is more likely to look like 14. And if it is anything close to that Hillary is doomed and if it is 14, Hillary is doomed in a landslide.

                    And if Hillary implodes, they are really doomed since her implosion likely splits the party. The only way I see the Democrats winning is if there is a 3rd party candidate that splits the right and lets them win with their 44 or so percent floor.

                    1. There was never an “Obama coalition”. In 2008 the electorate was voting against Bush. In 2012 he was pushed past the post by record Dem turnout, driven by identity politics and fear rhetoric, and possibly voter fraud. Those are all still going to be used in 2016 and I don’t see why they won’t have the same effect on behalf of Hillary.

                    2. Because the parts of the coalition are turning on each other and Hillary doesn’t command the kind of enthusiasm Obama did.

            2. No, whoever is in power after Obama leaves (most likely GOP unless Trump) will be blamed for failing to uphold His Holiness’ treaty and now Iran has a bomb. Which is also not a problem at all. What are they going to do, nuke Tel Aviv?

              1. No Pan. That is not how it will work. This deal is being sold as a way to stop Iran. The only excuse they will have is “no one could have done any better”. That is what the spin will be. “In spite of our great deal, Iran did this but without our deal it would have happened sooner”. It will be a variation on the “but it could have been worse” excuse they offer for every other failure.

                And it won’t work.

        2. Perhaps what’s stupid is the Republicans putting winning some news cycles ahead of doing the right thing.

    2. The Democrats were always going to own it. Had the Corker bill not passed, Obama could have run and hid like he usually does after an executive action.

      1. No. Obama was going to own it. If the Congress kills it, Obama will own it.

  10. Critics of the deal who insist Iran will get a nuclear bomb anyway ought to articulate what alternative they support.

    You know, this kind of bullshit is getting pretty tiresome. You don’t have to be some kind of warboner-stroking neocon to believe that the deal is a lousy one, in which the West capitulated to virtually every Iranian ask while getting very little in return. The Iranians get an immediate financial windfall, the inspections regime contemplated by the deal is a loophole-ridden mess and the sanctions “snapback” provisions are unlikely to be of any practical value once the European signatories start buying Iranian oil.

    The alternative I support is either (a) a better deal, in which the Iranians don’t get free money to funnel to their terrorist proxies, and the reimposition of sanctions for any cheating against a much-more-bulletproof inspection regime is more or less automatic; or (b) the continuation of sanctions. Either would be peachy.

  11. Jesus, this article sounds like a press release or something Tony threw up. Seriously, WTF? I can get the “well it’s not perfect but Obama did the best he could” argument from thousands of other news sources.
    He couldn’t at least get a fucking American hostage back for 150 bil?

    1. Unhelpful

  12. I’m still sticking with my drug induced theory that Obama is a brilliant strategist that is intentionally letting Iran grow in power to shift the balance in the Shia/Sunni conflict. It will bring the eventual fall of the House of Saud and sources of much Al Queda/ISIS financing.

    At least this theory helps me sleep and keeps the nightmares away. The alternative is that the CIC of the most powerful country in the world is a blithering idiot who really thinks this is a good deal.

    1. When your best case scenario is a regional holy war in the Middle East . . .

      you are fucked.

      1. Yeah, but the alternative is I’m doubly fucked with an incompetent prez…

  13. I wonder if all the people saying “it was either this deal or a war” have considered that the deal actually compels us to go to war with Israel if they decide to attack Iran.

    Of course there’s no way we would actually go to war with Israel. It just underlines that this entire deal is non-absorbent toilet paper.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.