Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Iran Deal Is Still a Good Bargain

It's in America’s national security interest to stay in the agreement.

The case against the nuclear deal with Iran is reminiscent of what Woody Allen once said: "Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering—and it's all over much too soon." The agreement, critics insist, is terrible and doesn't last long enough.

Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said on NPR Tuesday, "The problem is that the restrictions that the deal puts in place are automatically removed in a few years. This was the core problem of the deal from the beginning."

If it's not a good deal for the U.S. and Israel, shouldn't we prefer that it be over as quickly as possible? The weird logic of the opponents is that because parts of the accord will end too soon, we should end the whole thing even sooner—right now. Their implication is that all the flaws would be acceptable if only they would remain in effect until the end of time.

At his briefing Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood beside a giant screen filled with two words: "Iran lied." This assertion was a surprise on the order of finding snow in Siberia. The United States entered negotiations on Iran's nuclear program precisely because we didn't believe the claim that it had only peaceful purposes.

Had the Obama administration taken the Iranians to be paragons of honesty, it would not have held out for the most intrusive inspections regime ever imposed on a country. National security adviser Susan Rice said in 2015, "Our approach is distrust but verify."

The Israelis point out that the inspectors didn't unearth the files Netanyahu released. They didn't need to. "All of it was information that the International Atomic Energy Agency already had and has already commented on," Mark Fitzpatrick, executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told CNN.

"Even if the documents assembled by Israel are genuine, they do not appear to reveal that prohibited nuclear weapons research and design activities continued in an organized fashion beyond 2003," Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told me.

Besides, the nuclear inspectors aren't supposed to spend their time finding out what the Tehran government did 15 years ago. They are supposed to ensure that Iran is complying with its current obligations, and they've found over and over that it is.

The important part of the session was what Netanyahu didn't say. He didn't say Iran has violated the agreement.

The White House responded to his slide show with a statement that the disclosures prove Iran "has a robust, clandestine nuclear program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people"—and then had to correct the statement to say Iran "had" such a program. Meaning: It no longer does. That would be thanks to the accord.

The deal put severe limits on Iran. It had to give up 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantle its plutonium reactor, and surrender 70 percent of its centrifuges. Inspectors can gain access to any site where they detect suspicious activity. The curbs on Iran are why Donald Trump's own defense secretary, James Mattis, has said it's in our national security interest to stay in the agreement.

The president, however, says it must be revised or he'll withdraw. But why would Iran agree to changes without new concessions on our part? And why would Iran see any point in amending an agreement with a government that feels free to renege on its established commitments?

Some restrictions on Iran's activities expire after 10 or 15 years. But if the administration would like to see those limits extended, the best hope is to abide by our obligations. Over time, Iran might grow more confident that it doesn't need nuclear weapons and agree to longer terms.

Trump's threats are likely to have the opposite effect. They tell the Iranian government it can't rely on multilateral agreements and had better have a good military deterrent against its enemies.

Trump accuses Barack Obama of sticking him with "a terrible deal." If the U.S. abandoned the deal, Iran would be free to evict the inspectors and resume the very activities that Netanyahu decried.

At that point, we would be presented with the same choice that the agreement served to avert: Allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear program or start a war to try to prevent it. Talk about a terrible deal.

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.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Sometimes I wonder if Chapman is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain (or maybe the guy advising him that appeasement would never lead to Poland being invaded).

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another joint meeting of Libertarians For Military Belligerence and Libertarians For Right-Wing Bigotry is convened at the reason.com comments section.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    So you're saying you're too stupid to understand that a realistic discussion of the pros and cons would necessarily include a discussion of appeasement?

    Yeah, we know you are.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    So you're saying you're too stupid to read and comprehend ... both at the same time?
    And you wanted everyone to notice?

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    So you're saying you're too stupid to understand that a realistic discussion of the pros and cons would necessarily include a discussion of appeasement?

    Yeah, we know you are.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That bears repeating.

  • John||

    Hihn is legitimately crazy. You can't fake the kind of irrationality that he exhibits. The Reverend is just pig ignorant and dumb as a post.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Half-educated, backward, bigoted right-wingers -- the depleted human residue that inhabits our can't-keep-up backwaters after generations of bright flight -- tend to dislike my comments.

    I am content.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Interesting, whoever you are?

  • Dizzle||

    I'm pretty sure they're the same person, or I've always assumed so. hihn is supposed to be from near Seattle and Kirkland is a suburb of Seattle. Unless that's just some reference I'm missing, they're writing styles are too similar not to both be hihn

  • Dizzle||

    And if you notice, they reply in each others threads a lot. I'm almost positive its just hihn trying to pretend there are other ass hats like him around so he created a burner account to agree with himself

  • JoeBlow123||

    I believe left and right are actually words and do not, in fact, have a mathematical value. I believe your math is off, comrade.

  • Dizzle||

    Ok, so the stuff on your website about holding some first ever position as a libertarian in Washington state then?

    Either way, youre originally from cleveland and you made a burner account to agree with yourself because you've failed so badly communicating. That's incredibly sad

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're not Hihn. Hihn doesn't live in Boise.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It isn't so much that I favor military interventionism. It's more a matter of facing facts. Iran is and has been lying to us. We need to decide how serious we are about keeping them from having nuclear weapons, because they mean to have them as soon as they can, and once they have them they mean (or say they mean) to use them on Israel.

    Now, if we don't actually give a fat damn if assorted Islamobigots finish what a certain despicable Austrian started, then we should withdraw from the agreement simply because they never had any intention of honoring it and when they break it it will make us look foolish and mandate a course of action we don't want to take. OTOH, if we care to keep them from vaporizing Israel (and Israel from vaporizing a good segment of the Islamic World in retaliation....holocaust survivors are not forgiving people as a rule) then we need to find a better way to bring Iran to some sense of their danger.

    The agreement, like so many of Obama's acts as President, is a fine looking thing, but ultimately hollow and worthless.

  • Elston G||

    Wow. Had to get that Obama shot in there at the end, even though you won't be able to back up that baseless assertion if your life depended on it. But the Idiocracy of the authoritarian right says the deal is worthless, so that's what you parrot.
    Sad.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Not robbing trillions from America to appease an Islamofascist state that can't go five minutes without screaming it's intent to kill all the Jews and nuke the planet for the 12th Imam is an act of war! DERKADEEKADERKA!"

    Shut the fuck up.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Do you also kick kittens?

    When did this place become overrun with thugs and assholes?

  • Elston G||

    Feel free to comment on what you think mr. Chapman got wrong.
    You're very legitimacy depends on it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    You are the special kind of stooge totalitarians rely on to exist in the world, to act as their fifth column in free countries, to muddy issues of right and wrong. This kind of nonsense can be expected from communists, but I guess anarchists can have similar stooge-ish tendencies.

  • BYODB||

    Say what you will about socialists, but at least they aren't under the illusion that a temporary state of affairs between two ruling systems of government is itself a valid and stable form of government (RE: Anarchy)

    Anarchists are worse than deluded, they'll go along with anything to take down whatever system exists without regard for what comes after. Anarchy is just as likely, however, to lead to socialism as it is to anything else so it's at best marginally better than some alternatives.

  • Elston G||

    Your comment was filled with ad hom but not one Counterpoint. But that is par for the course for the regulars here.

  • colorblindkid||

    I think we should keep the Iran Deal because the alternatives are worse right now and we're already stuck with it.

    However, critics of the deal are right about almost everything, and it is undeniable that we were deliberately lied to about nearly everything about the deal by the Obama administration.

    But Obama said nice things about journalists so he still gets a pass on 8 years of obfuscation and lies about nearly everything.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The liars are the Republicans who say this deal "insures Iran gets nuclear weapons" when any deal with a time limit insures they don't for that allotted time frame.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    where insures means "relies on them to tell us"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, a NATO approved inspector has access to Iran's facilities.

  • John||

    An inspector who only goes where the Iranians allow him and sees only what they let him,

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    exactly.

    what does this idiot think the IAEA is going to do, kick down doors and start a shooting war over access?

    or is he actually so fucking dumb that he thinks Iran is playing this straight?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    An inspector who only goes where the Iranians allow him and sees only what they let him,

    False. Perhaps shamefully.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    no, they have access to what Iran gives them access to

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    > "no, they have access to what Iran gives them access to"

    That's a shameful lie also, Typical of your ilk.

  • BYODB||

    We were literally told at the time of the deal that Iran never had any nuclear weapons program in place. As in ever. Now, officials are saying 'oh, that nuclear weapons program? Sure, we knew about that.'

    So, you'll have to forgive me if I believe none of what any administration says on the subject. Especially Obama era appointee's since even when he was in office we all knew they lied through their teeth about everything. The more time that passes, the more the lies are revealed now that the White House is leaking like a sieve again.

    Personally, though, I can't say I much care what happens to the Middle East. Yes, we armed Israel with nuclear weapons. The question, I suppose, is should we feel responsible if Israel uses them to glass neighboring nations or do anything to stave off such an end result? Because a lot of people think that's what's going to happen over there once Iran gets weapons.

    I don't know if they're right, it hasn't been true in the past like when Pakistan became nuclear, but to pretend each case will end in the same way is a fools errand.

  • Heedless||

    Pretty sure the French helped Israel develop nukes.

    The US was still desperately trying to keep the Egyptians from going over to the Soviets, so we weren't selling Israel any arms

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    We were literally told at the time of the deal that Iran never had any nuclear weapons program in place. As in ever.

    That's total baloney. Iran's violations were the purpose of the agreement.

    If they had none, why the agreement?
    And why does the agreement include an explicit schedule for dismantling and/or removing the nuclear resources you say never existed?

    Why do Trump's loyal ass-kissers make such fools of themselves, repeatedly, on matters of common knowledge to even the moderately informed?

  • mr burns||

    The gullibility is strong in those who prefer not to see uncomfortable truths. Iran has lied about their nuclear program since it started. They were required to inform the west about their nuclear project, as the Israeli heist show they didn't do that. Instead they denied everything. Iran has repeatedly denied they had any nuclear weapons program. The west and Obama went along with this. They certainly never revealed anything like what Israel has just revealed. So they either lied through ignorance or by omission, while the Iranians lied knowingly and explicitly. That is hardly the basis for any sort of workable understanding.

    The Iranian regime is in trouble, protests continue in almost every major city. They are corrupt and viewed by their own people as corrupt. They are broke too. Obama's multi-billion dollar gift allowed them to reduce their inflation rate from 30% to single digits but it climbing again and now exceeds 10%. Were trump to dump the Obama deal (which is an unconstitutional agreement which should be rejected on those grounds alone) he could reimpose sanctions and cut Iran off from western financial institutions. Life would get a lot harder for the Mullahs.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    I'm sure that this time it will be different....

  • John||

    Governments do fall. Revolutions do happen. Yeah, maybe this time depriving them of the money to pay off their jailers will cause the people of Iran to revolt.

  • BYODB||

    Notably, the current Iranian government was put into place by a revolution...so yeah it happens.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Or maybe it's not out problem one way or the other, and we're not beholden to put ourselves further in debt to try and buy the affection of a psychopathic state that swears it will destroy us and everyone else.

  • Elston G||

    Mr. Burns. What part of your ignorant assertions are you ready to back up first? Or should I say, what part of it can you backup?
    I'll go out on a limb and say not one thing. You can take that as a challenge. It's about time you folks got called out on the things you say.

  • Elston G||

    Funny. You won't be backing up any of your assertions in that post when challenge to do so if your life depended on it.
    And I can prove it.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Even for a totalitarianism-worshipping Islamofascist Useful Idiot, you're an evil fucking dumbass.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Are you really so totally ignorant of world history?
    Or just a young teenager on a hissy fit?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Your grasp,of history is especially tenuous, whoever you are. Liberating Kuwait from Saddam was part of 'a thousand year war'. Not one little bit. And the bit about WW2 is laughable on it's face.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Over time, Iran might grow more confident that it doesn't need nuclear weapons and agree to longer terms."

    Over time, human beings might evolve into beings of pure energy.

    Over time, entropy may be reversed.

    In the meanwhile, go fuck yourself Chapman. You suck.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Just now? I have hair on me chest since I a babe!

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    I've had hair on my balls.... that Michael Hihn's wife shampooed with her tongue....

  • Trigger Warning||

    I wouldn't tap that with Tony's dick.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Have another tantrum about how recognizing Obammy's actions is "derangement syndrome", dumbfuck.

    Maybe if you cry hard enough, history will rewrite itself so the Hillary campaign DIDN'T invent birtherism.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Maybe if you cry hard enough, history will rewrite itself so the Hillary campaign DIDN'T invent birtherism.

    Here's proof of how totally manipulated you've been. Her campaign never even mentioned it.

    THIS proof includes actual videos of Trump's claims, which even you admit are zany.

    Birtherism traces to a bat-shit crazy Illinois Republican in 2004, part of the claim that Obama is a Muslim.

    You may not be a psychopathic hater, so why swallow their shit?
    And why talk like a 10-year-old with tiny ..... hands?

  • Dana||

    "Even if the documents assembled by Israel are genuine..." Yes, the Israelis concocted this whole treasure trove just to start a war. I think that is the line of thinking for most closeted anti-Semites.

    We knew they were lying so we inked a deal (with 3 or more "side deals") to keep them honest. Oh, and Pres. Pallets O'Cash sent a little pocket change back, too, while trying to do it secretly. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

  • colorblindkid||

    I love the "Israel is the aggressor" stories and people saying Israel is the one threatening Iran with war.

    Israel threatens to take out Iran's nuclear sites and missile silos.

    Iran threatens to annihilate Israel from the face of the map and kill all the Jews, who totally never experienced the Holocaust, which is made up.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Iran objects to the boundries that the UN drew up that defines the state of Israel. Actually US conservatives also hate the UN proving once again how much they have in common with Iranian mullahs.

  • colorblindkid||

    Iran doesn't object to the UN. It objects to Jews existing.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Iran objects to Israel existing. Iran is home to the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East and they are given a seat in the assembly.

    Try to tone down your wingnut talking points please.

  • colorblindkid||

    And that "largest population" is 8,000 people because everybody else fled. They get a token seat in government, but still are regularly discriminated against and are victims of violence.

  • colorblindkid||

    But yes, at least they didn't go full Egypt, where only 6 Jews are left in the entire country, and they are all women over the age 60. Good for Iran.

  • BYODB||

    lol, yes, the 'second largest Jewish population' in a region explicitly known for exterminating Jews in particular. Of course, Christians are also exterminated whenever possible. Then, you have the fact that minority Muslim sects aren't far behind those two. In context, I'm afraid this isn't a very compelling argument.

    Of course, how many Arabs and Muslims live in Israel again?

    It's sort of like saying 'Iran is a beacon of Progress in the Middle East', it can be true when you consider the number of nomadic goat herders are their neighbors. To them, an ICBM isn't an understandable concept, I'd wager, let alone an iPad.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    But please, Buttplug. Tell us more about how the country that marches it's armies across neighboring borders to kidnap and ransom American hikers is the moral judge of border sovereignty.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Iran objects to Israel existing because they object to the existence of Jews, same reason nearly every Muslim nation in the planet thinks Israel is illegitimate, but has no issue seizing other people's land themselves.

    Kinda shove your Islamofascist talking points back up your ass.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm sure that when you and your progressive friends have their way, and the Israelis are exterminated, that you will be breaking open bottle of champagne for the occasion.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's more complicated than that. Even after the 1979 revolution, Iran, kept the part of its 1906 constitution that guarantees the Iranian Jewish community (who have been there since the Achaemenid Dynasty) a seat in Parliament.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They object to the Jews no longer accepting being second class subjects under Islamic dominion like in the good ol' days.

  • Dizzle||

    First google why the Christian crusaders had to travel from Europe to the holy land in the first place.

    Hint, Turks and Muslims were slaughtering all non Muslims in byzanteum and the holy land.

  • Dizzle||

    First google why the Christian crusaders had to travel from Europe to the holy land in the first place.

    Hint, Turks and Muslims were slaughtering all non Muslims in byzanteum and the holy land.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh bullshit. The crusades were a European response to over a century of Islamic aggression. Finally, enough was enough.

    Whoever you are, "Hihn", you should learn some history.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It is nice to know we all have something in common [hatred of the UN] aside from needing 02.

  • John||

    Iran hates the UN who drew up the borders of Isreal. Yeah no shit. That is because they refuse to recognize Isreal's right to exist and publicly say they want to destroy it.

    Shreek is dumb as a post but makes up for it by being a liar.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Iran objects to the existence of Jews and any non-Muslims, dumbass.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, it isn't.

  • Elston G||

    Color blind kid. Whoever told you Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel is another right-wing liar.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bibi the Rat has a war boner!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know who else was an anti-Semite?

  • Shirley Knott||

    People who ignore the reality that not all Semites are Jews nor are all Jews Semites?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm not an anti-Semite.

    I'm anti-we are Israel's bitch and have to fight their wars for them.

    See Iraq.

  • John||

    The JEWS got us into Iraq!!

    Nothing anti Semitic about believing a cabal of Jews manipulates world events and acts as a fifth column in the United States. No not at all.

    Jesus H. Christ, you are awful. You are just a fucking hateful racist retard.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Cheney, Perle, and company authored a plan to secure Israel by conquering Iraq, Syria, Iran and any state that objected to Israel's land grab in the West Bank.

  • John||

    Yes Shreek we know, you think Jews control world events and US foreign policy for their own benefit. Tell us more about how you are not an Anti-Semite.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    See my comment below. Weigel is more of a self-hating Jew than an anti-Semite. Some might think they're the same thing, but they're not exactly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BUtt, didn't the Democrats vote to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to back up Booosh's boneheaded idea to invade?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The invasion was a good plan. It was the occupation that was poorly thought out.

  • Elston G||

    Fake. In what way was it a good plan?

  • Elston G||

    Love the Constitution. A minority of Democrats unfortunately voted to give shrub authorization to use Force.
    Hillary did not vote for a rush to War. Did you ever read her speech from the floor before the vote?

  • leninsmummy||

    You don't know history. Israel has and will continue to defend ITSELF. Israelis have guns, nukes, an ass kicking army, and are tough moutherfuckers because of pricks like you.

  • DesigNate||

    Would that be the same Iraq that Obama wanted to stay in and the same Syria him and Hillary were chomping at the bit to pull a "Libya" on?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Funny how you defended every example of Daddy Obama involving us in illegal mideast wars to aid Islamofascist terrorist cells and dictators, tho

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Obama Derangement Syndrome. This dude is one self-righteous hater. TIME for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ! Or another flood.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Weigel is a German-American Jew who broke the covenant, swapped out Jehovah for Karl Marx, and has a latent but deep-seated fear that inside every goyim there's a Hitler who wants to come out and finish the job.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Bibi osn't the one threatening to nuke the world to being about the 12th Imam prophecy. Bibi isn't the one throwing tantrums threatening to kill us all unless we give him the means to kill us all, you insufferable waste of fucking life.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    How psycho can one bigot be?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB is a good example of why we need to destroy the progressives. Every day that millions of parasitic soulless monsters like him are allowed to comtinue, we lose a little bit more of our constitutional republic. Better they are cleansed from America through whatever means are available than we lose what we have left. And that can be as unpleasant for them as they choose to make it.

    Best they just all leave.

  • Jerryskids||

    And why would Iran see any point in amending an agreement with a government that feels free to renege on its established commitments?

    I thought we'd settled this yesterday. It was Obama's government that made the agreement, not Trump's. There's a bit in the Constitution about the Senate's role in ratifying treaties, due to the fact that the Senate at the time directly represented the states' interests and not the peoples' interests, it ensured that the United States as a whole were on-board with the agreement. No Senate ratification, no binding agreement.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    EVASION

  • Alcibiades||

    OT; ACLU is no longer;

    https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/05/02/
    the-new-and-improved-aclu/

    IJ it is, going forward.

  • colorblindkid||

    IJ has been the best for awhile. The ACLU is now no better than the SPLC.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Which of them has more money stashed offshore?

    -jcr

  • John||

    The ACLU has been a front for the left for going on 50 years. This is just them being more honest about it. They never cared about the 2nd Amendment or free speech on campuses when it involved conservatives. And the only time they ever defended anyone on the Right was when it involved people who embarrassed and discredited the right like Nazis or the KKK. The ACLU hasn't done a single thing that didn't further leftist politics in my lifetime. They are a piece of shit organization.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, the ACLU has protected the rights of your fellow right-wingers in the Klan and Nazi Party when the GOVERNMENT has infringed.

    The progressive student idiots who shout down speakers embarrass the left plenty.

  • John||

    The Nazis and the KKK are Socialists and Democrats. Thanks for further proving my point.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You are full of shit.

  • John||

    They are called National Socialists you half wit. And the KKK has always been Democrats.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    How DARE John cite HISTORICAL FACTS!!! The MONSTER!!!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Butt, can never admit that Nazis are socialists and the Democrats started the KKK and Jim Crowe laws.

    Democrats are racist pieces of shit.

  • Dizzle||

    You do realize southern democrats filibustered the civil rights act right? See: Al gores father

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    From the link posted by Alciabiades: "It's now a social justice organization that may, at best, be fair-weather defenders of the Constitution when SJWs find their positions inoffensive."

    Give it a read and see what you think; it has long appeared to me that their free speech absolutism peaked at Skokie and resulted in near financial ruin for them [a lot of Jewish lawyers did not appreciate their idealism on that march and withheld donations]; since that point they have been little more than a left wing advocacy group. I believe those gloves are fully off now.

  • Finrod||

    Find me a case where the ACLU stood up for 2nd Amendment rights, fuckwit.

  • Alcibiades||

    For a while considered the rot was a minor faction within, now know it's putrid to the core.

    IJ does great work but there's room for a non-partisan organization centered on defending the BoR.

  • John||

    I had a professor in college who had quit the organization in the mid 80s because he felt it had become just an arm of the Democratic Party. This is a guy who was a no shit freedom rider and an old school FDR Democrat. And by the 1980s the ACLU had become so dishonest that even he could not stay in it consistent with keeping any sort of integrity.

  • Elston G||

    John, same ACLU that defended Rush Limbaugh?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The ACLU is awesome! As a libertarian, I especially like that they defend affirmative action in college admissions. That's clearly the stance that any principled advocate of the Constitution would have.

    I have been critical of their support of "free speech" for members of the alt-right. But if they're moving away from that type of thing, it makes me appreciate them even more.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Really clumsy and obvious on this post. You should be more selective and only post when you've got a subtle angle. Quality over quantity is the parody way.

  • Illocust||

    Shame they'll keep the same name. It's be nice if they'd make a clean break, so people can stop pretending to give them credit for acts of principle they'd never stand up for now.

  • BYODB||


    Laura Weinrib, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, writes in her book The Taming of Free Speech: America's Civil Liberties Compromise. In this early activist cosmology, free speech was a "tool of social justice"—a means to an end, not the end itself, as it became in later years.


    Well...at least they're being more honest now?

  • John||

    So last week Chapman was telling us how the US needed to confront and be tough with Russia and this week he is telling us how we should trust the Iranians. I used to think Chapman was just stupid. The last few weeks have shown me that he makes up for it by having no integrity or shame. What a fucking hack.

  • Elston G||

    John. Chapman does not tell you trust the Iranians.
    Why are you lying? Or did you not read the piece?

  • leninsmummy||

    What's the point in making a deal of any kind with a country that doesn't honor deals and lies? Israel will take out Iranian facilities when they get too close to a nuke. Theyre the only reason Iran doesn't have one yet. As for the isolationists on this thread, we tried that and got 2 world wars. We should support other democracies in this world. They are far less likely to cause the carnage totalitarian regimes have in this last century.

  • John||

    People forever believe that they can have peace if only they want it badly enough and refuse to believe that you only get peace when your enemies agree to give it to you.

    People like shreek would literally let Iran nuke a few cities if preventing it meant admitting fault with the God Emperor Obama.

  • Elston G||

    John. Name the countries Iran has invaded and occupied in the last hundred years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Bush Doctrine was a complete failure pal.

    The Obama Doctrine (Don't Do Stupid Shit) is the closest thing we can get to the NAP.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Your idea of the NAP contains an awful lot of room for blowing up families with robots, huh.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "closest"

  • BYODB||

    If 'as close as it gets' is 'total incompatibility with the concept' than I'd say your definition of 'close' needs reexamination.

  • mr burns||

    quite a pity that Obama administration only paid lip service to their doctrine (Dont do Stupid Shit). They did an immense amount of stupid shit, from shutting down an investigation of Hezbollah's drugs running ring in south America so as to further the non-treaty with Iran, to giving Iran 150 billion in cash so its uses couldn't be traced, to running guns to Mexican drug cartels, to corruptly using the IRS to interfere in the 2012 election, to using US intelligence agencies to interfere in the 2016 election.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama attacked more band new countries than Boooosh.

    Yemen, Niger, Syria, Libya, Tunisia are those countries liar.

  • leninsmummy||

    Obama just continued the Bush Doctrine so I don't know what you're talking about. Instead of capturing and torturing prisoners and depriving them of their 'rights' he just dropped bombs on them, so yeah, there were fewer complaints.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    The Obama Doctrine saw over twice as many deaths in twice as many illegal wars, fought to bomb civilian hospitals and weddings and arm terrorists, You Stupid Shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The consequences for violating the NPT were severe for Iran. They included a Weimar Republic inflation rate because of sanctions, being cut off from the international oil market, and being cut off from international credit markets. They had burned through all their foreign reserves and there were food shortages--this even while the Arab Spring was raging next door.

    Violating the NPT had sever consequences for Iran, and that's why they came to the negotiating table. It wasn't out of the goodness of their heart. It was because they had no other choice. They were desperate.

    Because Obama let them off the hook for no good reason rather than requires them to abide by the NPT and give up enriching their own uranium is not evidence that the NPT didn't work. It's just evidence that Barack Obama was an incompetent fool, who sold our long term security interests short out of good will, stupidity, and naivete.

  • Elston G||

    Complete nonsense from a bigoted Obama hater.
    Hannity isn't the place you should be getting your worldview.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You should post more good stuff like this.

  • Finrod||

    I wish all his comments were that length. It would make reading him much more pleasant.

  • MikeP2||

    "It's in America's national security interest to stay in the agreement"

    No, it isn't.

    "If the U.S. abandoned the deal, Iran would be free to evict the inspectors and resume the very activities that Netanyahu decried."

    They are already, according to almost every report and analysis.

    "we would be presented with the same choice that the agreement served to avert: Allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear program or start a war to try to prevent it."

    It is not limited to this silly binary solution set. The deal is nothing more than polish on a turd and has done little to prevent Iran's work on nuclear weapons. Sanctions and diplomatic isolation is the alternative to war, but the deal erased that option. Scrap the deal, and punish Iran economically. Stress the populace, and encourage them to get rid of the theocracy.

  • leninsmummy||

    The populace is already stressed. They're even more stressed in North Korea, which is basically a big prison camp, and China. Still the rulers prevail. This is not a solution.

  • MikeP2||

    That is a stretch to claim. Iran has a far more educated and worldy populace than NK, with far greater power to revolt. They almost did a few years ago, and Obama turned his back on them. One would almost think he aligned with the mullahs.

    Sanctions and isolation is very likely to provide a catalyst for change there.

  • Elston G||

    The deal doesn't erase that option. And bring a credible report or analysis that backs up your assertion.
    There are none.

  • Alcibiades||

    Didn't Obama neutralize an ongoing investigation of illegal drug trafficking to fund Hezbollah terrorist activities to preserve the Iran Deal?

  • Ken Shultz||

    When I read pieces like this about the NPT, they usually never reference the NPT, There's a reason for that. It's because if the pieces referenced the NPT, the whole piece wouldn't make any sense.

    The central premise of the NPT is that each nation has the right to enrich their own uranium--so long as they never enrich uranium in secret. If they are found to enrich uranium in secret, they forfeit the right to enrich their own uranium.

    Iran was caught red-handed enriching their own uranium in secret, and they have forfeited the right to enrich their own uranium as a result.

    The alternative to Iran enriching their own uranium is for them to procure uranium sufficiently enriched for civilian use from other parties to the NPT. The United States government offered to supply such uranium, but there is no reason why they couldn't procure it from Russia, their ally.

    In short, Iran has willing forfeited the right to enrich their own according to the NPT--forever. However, there is an alternative to Iran enriching their own uranium built into the NPT itself, and there is no reason why Iran can't avail themselves of that alternative.

  • BYODB||


    ...and there is no reason why Iran can't avail themselves of that alternative.


    Sure there is, they can't use that uranium to make a missile. ^_-

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Some restrictions on Iran's activities expire after 10 or 15 years. But if the administration would like to see those limits extended, the best hope is to abide by our obligations.

    By "some restrictions", Chapman means enriching their own uranium.

    Meanwhile, Chapman talks about "our obligations" in reference to an unconstitutional treaty Obama struck without consulting the senate. The only obligations we have in this matter are detailed in the NPT, which our senate ratified in full accordance with the Constitution. We are obligated by that treaty to allow Iran to procure enriched uranium from elsewhere.

    It is shameful to see erstwhile libertarians continuously advocate ignoring the Constitution like this. I suggest we all bookmark this page and remind Chapman of it every time he tries to tell us that something is unconstitutional in the future. There is no substantive difference between those who don't give a shit about the Constitution and those who only care about violating it when doing so suits them for other reasons.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    It is shameful to see erstwhile libertarians continuously advocate ignoring the Constitution like this.

    I appreciate your tact and positive viewpoint and understand No True Scotsman...

    But honestly how long do these 'libertarian' writers get to write incredibly non-libertarian articles, all because "It's Trump!", before we no longer refer to them as esrtwhile?

    At what point can we blame them for not learning?

    If less than a year, we're well past the point where maybe may calling them progressive is more accurate than well meaning libertarian.

  • Nardz||

    Truth

  • Elston G||

    Ken Schultz.
    Sad to see you are so ignorant about US presidents and treaties. Through the reading required so you don't look like a freaking Hannitized fool.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Some restrictions on Iran's activities expire after 10 or 15 years. But if the administration would like to see those limits extended, the best hope is to abide by our obligations.

    I have no obligations. What is this 'our', kemosabe?

    That's the deal with pen-and-phone governance. When the consent of the governed is irrelevant, the government may not have it.

  • Elston G||

    Another ignorant right wing Obama hater that thinks presidents don't have treaty Authority.

  • TGoodchild||

    Good news! Iran is effectively self-reporting that they are in complete compliance - nothing to see here!

  • Finrod||

    When I was in school they let me grade my own tests. My streak of perfect test scores will never be beaten!

  • lap83||

    Reason always has their best and brightest reporting on foreign policy

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All together now...APPEASEMENT! APPEASEMENT!

  • Tom Bombadil||

    The Iran deal is the bastard you get when a President rapes the Constitution.

  • Nardz||

    Great line.
    Deserves recognition

  • Alcibiades||

    Kill the deal:

    https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/
    status/991729413099327491

  • mtrueman||

    It's a good bargain for those who voted for Obama, the workers for Boeing in Washington state, for example. Reneging on the deal would be a great way to punish these voters for inflicting 8 hellish years of Obama on the rest of us.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The usual crew wants to convene a meeting of Libertarians For Massive American Government Subsidy Of Military, Economic, And Political Skirts For Israel's Right-Wing Belligerents To Hide Behind!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But as Steve Chapman observes, why would Iran agree to changes without new concessions on our part? And why would Iran see any point in amending an agreement with a government that feels free to renege on its established commitments?

    Perhaps Iran should insist on a treaty next time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The senate might not have approved of sending them plane loads of cash.

    I mean, I'd like to think the senate might not have approved. Can't they at least go through the motions anyway?

  • BYODB||

    Well, in Obama's defense we weren't supposed to ever find out about that. Or about the whole 'they totally had a nuclear ICBM program that we knew about', too. Actually, it seems like there were a lot of things we were never supposed to find out about the deal...

    ...not that anyone cared. Even at the time I figured 'so what, the senate didn't sign off so as soon as the administration changes it can go *poof*, or not.'

    It's not foreign policy, it's just shuffling bits of paper around while doing the opposite of what you say you're doing in secret. Par for the course for the Obama years.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yep. There's this permenancy to legal treaties duly approved.

    If Iran decided in lieu of that, they would instead rely on a single elected official's promise, an official they knew would no longer be in their elected position in 2016, then they made an obvious and forseeable mistake.

    For that alone or even in part to be used as a reason not to negotiate an actual legal agreement now, is assinine.

  • Nardz||

    Maybe, but they still got that cash, homey!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Chapman, you have become a world-class Maroon!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Why the fuck is a Libertarian publication arguing that the government should robbtaxpayers to thw tunws of trillions to appease an Islamofascist state who has a stated goal of annihilating everyone else on the damn planet?

    Chapman, you're almost as stupid and dishonest as Buttplug.

  • Mark22||

    Glad I noticed it was a Chapman article before wasting time on it.

  • HippieSauce||

    Nice warboners, fellas.
    Hey, anyone know where I can find some libertarians?

  • jaastark||

    great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online