Why we should oppose the Iran nuclear deal

This is going to be a very short and simple post.

Stop worrying about how much uranium they have, how many and what type of centrifuges, or the breakout time. Stop worrying about whether the ‘deal’ makes sufficient provision for verification.

Oh, the intelligence agencies should continue to worry about those things. Military planners need to know them. But from a political point of view there is only one thing to keep in mind:

Iran will have a bomb in the near future if someone doesn’t stop them by force.

Obama Administration policy is that an Iranian bomb is fine, as long as it appears after he leaves office. I wouldn’t even count on the 22 months, but there it is. The chance of the US taking military action is extremely small. We can’t depend on it.

If anyone will stop Iran, it is Israel.

And this is the reason to oppose the deal, because — especially if it receives the imprimatur of the UN Security Council — it will be used as a reason to prevent Israel from acting and a weapon to punish it when it does take the action essential to its survival.

This entry was posted in Iran. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Why we should oppose the Iran nuclear deal

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    This post makes a number of presumptions that I am not sure are correct.
    The first is that Iran once it has a bomb would try to use it against Israel.
    I am not sure that the Iranian leadership is eager to risk suicide. Israel has a second- strike capability and should it hit Tehran with it this is the end of Iranian regime. The greater Tehran area is as much the heart of Iran as the greater Gush Dan area the heart of Israel.
    Along with this is the presumption that the destruction of Israel is Iran’s first goal and priority. It is no doubt a goal but I doubt it is the first and only one. Iran is now involved in a struggle with the Sunni world which is of great importance to it.
    The third is the assumption that an Iranian attack would destroy Israel. As I understand that is not certainly the case. On the other hand such an attack would most likely have horrendous results and the priority and urgency of avoiding it is clear.
    Here I would say a more extensive analysis of the whole of Iranian policy is required. They clearly have the goal of domination of the Middle East and even beyond. But they at the moment seem to be achieving their goal without nuclear weapons.
    Surely one of the most shameful elements of the Obama surrender deal is refusing to understand Iran as implacable enemy whose military capability should be destroyed.

    • I do not assume that Iran will use the bomb directly against Israel. I think it is more likely that it will use it as an umbrella to protect its proxies.

      I also do not assume that an Iranian nuclear attack would destroy Israel. I do believe that the Israeli government has not changed its position that nuclear weapons in the hands of an enemy are an existential risk and cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

  2. MDA says:

    Quote “…the Obama surrender deal is refusing to understand Iran as implacable enemy whose military capability should be destroyed”.
    Obama is an Indonesian Shia Muslim. The Indonesian Shia’s are pro Shiite and anti Sunni. Obama’s Iranian advisor and point person on all things Iranian is Valerie Jarret. IN the Oval Office there is no refusal to understand Iran. The refusal of America to understand their Taqiyya POTUS is the only “refusal to understand”.

    In the Shiite view Idolatrous Mecca and the Saudi Mecca Pimps have far more to fear from a Nuclear armed Iran than does Israel.
    The Turkish, Iranian, Islamic brotherhood homogeny will eliminate the Saudis.
    Afterall Obama is lobbying to have trusted NATO partner Turkey conduct Nuclear inspections on Iran. Brothers inspecting Brothers…will inspections even be necessary?

Comments are closed.