Iran Deal Ignores Obama's Own Stated Objectives for Nuke Talks

As usual, Obama is aiming for a political win. But this one has very nasty consequences!

Mark this moment. In a few years nations in the Middle East will be embarking in a nuclear showdown with drastic consequences for the entire world. Obama will be out of office, but he will be to blame. Will the Nobel Prize Committee be asking him to return the Peace Prize?

Here's what the Washington Post had to say about the "framework" for a deal Obama announced yesterday:

Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals
Washington Post Editorial
April 2, 2015

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
...
The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained. For example, the guidance released by the White House is vague in saying that U.S. and European Union sanctions “will be suspended after” international inspectors have “verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear related steps.” Exactly what steps would Iran have to complete, and what would the verification consist of?

Obama continues to present the false choice that it's either this agreement or war. I'm sorry, but there is a third alternative and if anyone comments here suggesting those who disagree with this deal only want war they will understand why their comments are not taken seriously.

Also, haven't we learned by now that verification of deals with regimes that are determined to cheat is nearly impossible?

Meanwhile, Iranians took to the streets to celebrate and their leaders laugh at Obama while promising to continue developing nuclear weapons.

Deal Worse than Munich 1938!

A few years back I wrote a post "Appeasement Kills." Sadly, it's only AFTER the war that we realize how bad these deals with evil were and how very right critics were in opposing them. Winston Churchill was ignored and derided as a warmonger as he warned about the Nazi menace. Had his advice been followed World War II might have been avoided and 50 million lives spared.

In his memoir of the Second World War, Churchill recalled the advantages that were squandered or thrown away:

CHURCHILL: In this sad tale of wrong judgments formed by well-meaning and capable people, we now reach our climax. That we should all have come to this pass makes those responsible, however honourable their motives, blameworthy before history. Look back and see what we had successively accepted or thrownaway.
...
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight withall the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

What a shame that Obama and the America haters who have influenced his life and education reject the clear eyed lessons of history offered by Winston Churchill. We risk re-learning those horrific lessons once again!