Protests in Iran Undermine a Key Premise of the Nuclear Deal

I’m pretty sure that most of us agree that a nuclear North Korea is a global threat.

Four American administrations and the best and the brightest in the State Department have misread and mishandled the North Koreans at every step. Instead of accepting the obvious fact that some cultures do not share the same values we in America cherish, the chattering classes have chosen a delusional belief that our Democratic values are, um, universal.

Barack Obama and his gang of overbred, overeducated leftists pursued the exact same course with the IslamoNazis of Iran, arguing in favor of, get this, “rational anti-Semites.”

The only thing worse than a nuclear North Korea is a nuclear Iran.

My good friend David Gerstman explains why the current riots in Iran—23 Iranians have been murdered by the regime so far—are proof that the Obama-Iran nuclear deal is foolish.

When President Barack Obama was interviewed by The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg in 2015 about the soon to be agreed on nuclear deal with Iran, Goldberg pressed the president on the wisdom of trusting Iran to act rationally, he responded:

Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.

In essence, the president was arguing Iranian practices could be called “rational anti-Semitism” and would therefore not risk violating the deal because of the consequences.

Furthermore, when Goldberg asked if Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew’s assessment that more of the sanctions relief would be used to build up Iran’s economy and infrastructure than building up its military and proxies was a bit optimistic, Obama replied:

Then [Iranian President] Rouhani and, by extension, the supreme leader have made a series of commitments to improve the Iranian economy, and the expectations are outsized. You saw the reaction of people in the streets of Tehran after the signing of the agreement. Their expectations are that [the economy is] going to improve significantly. You have Iranian elites who are champing at the bit to start moving business and getting out from under the restraints that they’ve been under.

So not only was Obama arguing that Iran’s declared anti-Semitic intention was “rational,” which would ensure that it abided by the nuclear deal, but also that there would be political constraints limiting Iran’s regional aggression. Furthermore, he added that sanctions had, in fact, strengthened Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military organization that not only attempts to spread Iran’s revolution abroad but also is behind the regime’s repression at home. Easing sanctions “may actually lessen” the means the IRGC developed to raise money while sanctions were in full force.

The protests against the regime in recent weeks, however, show how wrong Obama was in assessing the behavior of the Iranian regime.

Rather than being rational and spending the freed up billions on civilian infrastructure, Tehran used its windfall to raise a regional Shiite army, propped up Syria’s dictator Assad and sent ballistic missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The largess Iran provided to its proxies was not lost on the protesters.

Rather than weakening Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the IRGC, the nuclear deal strengthened both of them.

More here.

This entry was posted in America, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, IslamoNazis, Israel, Jew-haters, Jew-hatred, North Korea and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Barry
    Posted January 15, 2018 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    For clarification, the risk is the madness of the Democratic party coupled with the naïve of the Obama administration. Their new slogan: Hammer Donald Trump while we count our dead.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. pkoning
    Posted January 15, 2018 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    The notion that Iran’s leaders are interested in survival is rather questionable. It’s possible they are hypocrites, that certainly is common enough among people pretending to be religious zealots. But it’s also possible they are serious, which means they believe that martyrdom is a good thing and a direct route to paradise. If so, “interested in survival” is false, and the entire house of cards built on that premise falls apart.
    The risk around this issue is exactly why, as you say, a nuclear Iran is a far scarier thing than a nuclear North Korea. Because in the case of Kim 3 is does seem to be plausible to rely on his interest in survival. Kim is, after all, merely a garden variety tinpot communist dictator.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting