GOP plans to kill Iran deal could backfire
- By Mitchell Blatt
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, April 11, 2015
Kristol has no intention of fixing it. He wrote, "The deal can't be fixed." He prefers "the threat of military force" or "airstrikes" instead.
Of course, Kristol has a long history in this regard. He was arguing for invading Iraq as early as 1998. He started arguing for an Iran War as long ago as 2006.
In order to drum up opposition to a non-military solution to Iran's nukes, however, he has to resort to mischaracterizing the deal.
"The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out," he wrote.
Two sentences, two untruths. The sanctions come off "if it [Iran] verifiably abides by its commitments," as the State Department fact sheet states. "U.S. and EU nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions snap back into place."
The framework also calls for inspections, and kicking inspectors out would be a clear violation and grounds for sanctions again.
John Podhoretz, a fellow founder of The Weekly Standard and now editor of Commentary, echoed Kristol's claim: "This is a key provision because, of course, what the Iranians want -- and what they say they've got -- is the lifting of all sanctions."
Indeed, some of the Iranian officials have been making claims to the effect that sanctions will be lifted immediately. Some conservatives seem to take Iran at face value on that point.
What is funny is that another one of their main arguments against the deal is that Iran cannot be trusted. Kristol called it "an aggressive regime with a history of cheating that will now be enabled to stand one unverifiable cheat away from nuclear weapons."
Republican Senators are still trying to pass even more sanctions bills, which Obama has promised to veto if passed. Opponents of the deal are grasping at straws for anything to stifle it.
They are right that Iran has previously operated secret facilities and fought against transparent inspections. Still, we must operate on the best information we have.
Conservatives, of course, are generally more likely to support military action and oppose compromise. They distrust international law and take a hard line against foreign aggressors. With Obama in the final years of his presidency, they disapprove of him more than ever.
However, the way elected Republicans such as Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz have handled their opposition openly subverts the commander-in-chief's foreign policy powers, so they not only hurt Obama, but the office of the presidency. In fact, if one of them becomes president in 2016, they may have succeeded in sabotaging themselves.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/MitchellBlatt.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)