11 thoughts on “Claire Berlinski On The Iran Deal”

  1. One possibility that occurred to me this morning is that this is a prelude to forcing Israel to divest itself of the nukes it has:

    1) After decades of “no comment” form every US administration – Republican and Democrat – Obama has revealed data to the world that confirms what everyone suspected: Israel has nukes.

    Before that revelation, some players in the region were content to leave it at that. It suggests they feel safe from crazed Israeli nuclear attack. I’m speaking of nations like Saudi Arabia.

    2) Not everyone is content with that setup and wants nukes of their own. Iran has been working on it for years and has played the Saddam lie, bait, switch, negotiate (in bad faith – to gain time) game. It continues to do so. It knows that a US led invasion of Iran (like Iraq) is highly UNlikely.

    3) Clearly Obama sees Iran as the partner they want to deal with. He has bent over backwards to accommodate them:

    Obama supports the forces financed by Iran; Obama opposes the administrations which try to fight them (Mubarak, Ghadaffy, Al Sisi etc).

    Obama stood by silent during the 2009 Green Uprising.

    So…what if Obama’s plan is to bring the Iranians ever closer to a nuke and then when things get critical, offer the suggestion that Iran will toss away it’s attempt at a nuke *IF* Israel gets rid of their nukes?

    It plays into Obama’s technique: Make the good guys look like the bad guys who are standing in the way of a good thing – nuclear disarmament and/or a halt to the nuclear proliferation that is about to be triggered in the region if the Iranians go very much further.

    If Obama can get Israel to divest itself of nukes, then Israel’s hand is severely weakened. Obama gets his legacy.

    Obama manufactures the crisis and then offers a “solution” which helps his friends and hurts his enemies. Klassik Obama.

    The problem with this (if this is what he’s really doing) is that he’s playing with nuclear fire and things could easily get out of his control because other people get a vote. And nuclear fire getting out of control is a………..

    Bad Thing ™

  2. We needed to do something. After all, encouraging a revolution in 2009 was too frightening to consider. It’s better to give Iranian mullahs nukes than to have a democracy.

  3. The simplest explanation is that the alternative is war, and a period of intrusive inspections is better than war.

    Could there be any good reason to kick this decision further down the line?

    Both of our options — an agreement and a military strike — kick the problem down the line.

    1. “The simplest explanation is that the alternative is war, and a period of intrusive inspections is better than war.”

      Unfortunately for your theory, the “period of intrusive inspections” will be about zero minutes in length. Russia and/or China will vote against such things in the Security Council (Russia is already backing Iran). UN inspectors will be given the Saddam treatment – delays, excuses, prevarications leading to outright expulsion. Enriching will continue and there will be very little slowdown in Iran’s attempt to get a bomb.

    3. You have made a mistake. The alternative to this lame agreement is not war, any more than Reagan’s buildup did not conclude in war.

      Again, like Obama, you like to create false dichotomies.

    4. To add detail to other’s responses to your imbecilic straw man:

      The options are not limited to war or intrusive inspections (and inspections – other than a few cursory ones at the beginning – will never happen). We could slap further – stronger – sanctions; we could then give support to the resultant uprisings within Iran which would overthrow the regime. We could be bombing the facilities (only) thereby delaying the onset of the bomb which gives the sanctions even more time to work. At the same time we could be helping Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in every way possible to beat up the Iranian-backed forces in the region which costs Iran money and manpower and would get them nothing.

      Russia is involved in Iran and if we pushed back hard in Ukraine (weapons and intel) then Russia would have bigger problems as they too, would be expending a lot of effort and money and getting nothing in return. ….money the Russian people would begin to wonder why it’s not being spent on them. Russia would be able to do less with Iran.

      These are just a few of the options.

      But we do the exact opposite of all of this. That ought to tell you something, but I have every confidence it can’t penetrate your Obama-love.

    5. The alternative is war with whom, Jim?

      Iran?

      The extent of Iran’s war fighting capability is Syria and Yemen. Just the other day, Jim was claiming Yemen was less danger than MSRA, the latter is curable by millennia old medicine. Now war with Iran is some kind of threat?

      Seriously, we need smarter people from the left on this blog, because Jim has become a rambling moron. He’s only good when he gets some good talking points. Give him something off script and he just writes the dumbest things.

      If war with Iran is some kind of problem, much easier to deal with it now than after they have a nuclear weapon. Certainly better to deal with it now than to lift the sanctions and allow Iran to rebuild their military with all the unfrozen assets returned to them.

      1. Jim thinks war is the only possible way to prevent Iran from getting a bomb and he would much rather they get the bomb than us go to war. This is why he doesn’t mind stalling. Iran getting nukes and us not going to war are both things he is ok with.

        But, as you point out, if war is the only way to stop them, then waiting doesn’t help militarily. It does, however, allow Obama to kick the can on a difficult decision to another President rather than deal with the problems life has given Obama.

        Also, the reason why the negotiations will fail is that diplomacy is ultimately backed up by armies and Iran knows that if Obama won’t go to war to stop them from getting nukes, the most serious of threats, there is no scenario in which the USA will go to war with Iran.

        Iran won’t give up anything because they know there are no consequences to developing nuclear weapons. The talks are just a way to stall and prevent America or her allies from acting.

  4. And just to demonstrate that inspection will be thwarted…the UN has ALREADY stated that Iran is blocking their attempts at inspections:

    Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

    “The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran has failed to provide the information or access needed to allay the agency’s concerns about the weapons potential of the country’s nuclear program.”

    Iran Blocks Inspections, Hobbling Nuclear Deal

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-blocks-inspections-hobbling-nuclear-deal-1414797490

    IAEA Wants ‘Snap Inspections’ as Part of Iran Nuclear Deal

    Well guess what IAEA – Obama gave them away.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/30/iaea-wants-snap-inspections-as-part-of-iran-nuclear-deal/

    I mean your post about “intrusive inspections as the only alternative to war is just so mind bogglingly ignorant.

Comments are closed.