Obama’s Iran ‘Agreement’ Is a CharadeNo such agreement exists, and even if it did, we couldn’t trust the mullahs to submit to inspections.
By abandoning virtually all its demands for serious restrictions on Iran’s nuclear-bombBut even this hazy “achievement” may vanish like a mirage. It takes two to agree — and Iran has already publicly disputed and even mocked what President Obama says is the nature of that framework.
program, the Obama administration has apparently achieved the semblance of a preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement with Iran.
Had Iran wholeheartedly agreed with everything the Obama administration said, that agreement would still have been worthless, since Iran has already blocked international inspectors from its nuclear facilities at unpredictable times. The appearance of international control is more dangerous than a frank admission that we don’t really know what they are doing.
RELATED: Surrender to Tehran
Why then all these negotiations? Because these charades
If you look back through
Kevin Williamson: Campus Rape And The ‘Emergency’: It’s Always An Excuse For Authoritarianism
Victor Davis Hanson: The Burden Of Thought Policing
Eliana Johnson: Rand Paul Is Running For The Republican Nomination, So Now The Party Is Ready To Attack Him
Thomas Sowell: Obama’s Iran ‘Agreement’ Is A Charade
Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It
Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country — Israel this time — to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
RELATED: The Shadow of Munich Haunts the Iran Negotiations
Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: “The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion.”
After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” lasted just under a year.
Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair — to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a “citizen of the world,” or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the Obama administration are saying that the alternative to an agreement with Iran is war. But when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors, back in 1981, Iraq did not declare war on Israel. It would have been suicidal to do so, since Israel already had nuclear bombs.
RELATED: There’s No Deterring an Apocalyptic Nuclear Iran
There was a time when either Israel or the United States could have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, with far less risk of war than there will be after Iran already has its own stockpile of nuclear bombs. Indeed, the choice then will no longer be between a nuclear Iran and war. The choice may be between surrender to Iran and nuclear devastation.
Barack Obama dismissed the thought of America being vulnerable to “a small country” like Iran. Iran is in fact larger than Japan was when it attacked Pearl Harbor, and Iran has a larger population. If Japan had nuclear bombs, World War II could have turned out very differently.
If anyone examines the hard, cold facts about the Obama administration’s
This latest “agreement” with Iran — with which Iran has publicly and loudly disagreed — is only the latest episode in that political charade.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com. © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.