Iran deal a legitimate, even defining campaign issue for 2016

(AP)

(AP)

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, demonstrating the thoughtful, statesman-like approach to foreign policy that he believes distinguishes him from other presidential candidates, said today that the nuclear deal with Iran is “akin to declaring war on Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

“My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the region, our national security and eventually the world at large,” Graham said, confirming that if elected president, he would immediately move to break the deal.

That approach was mirrored by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rubio promised that if elected president, he would immediately reinstate sanctions against Iran and by doing so break the deal. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin also pledged to reverse the deal as soon as possible. And according to Donald Trump … oh, who cares?

With Hillary Clinton supporting the deal, such rhetoric from the right all but guarantees that Iran will be a major campaign issue throughout the 2016 campaign

That’s fine. It ought to be.

So let’s think this through: If a Republican takes office on Jan. 20, 2017 and immediately withdraws from the deal with Iran, as promised, what can we expect to happen?

It’s pretty straightforward: If the deal is broken and the United States reinstates sanctions, Iran would kick out the international inspectors, which means that we would lose almost all insight into Iran’s nuclear program. The relative moderates now in control in Iran would be discredited in the eyes of their people for thinking that the Great Satan could be trusted, guaranteeing a return to extremism along the lines of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some 13,000 of Iran’s most sophisticated nuclear centrifuges that are mothballed under the deal could be returned to service, once again producing the highly enriched uranium needed to build bombs. Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facility at Fordow would resume the processing that it is now forbidden to undertake.

The allies with whom we have worked hard to negotiate the deal in good faith — France, Germany, Great Britain — will feel betrayed by our unilateral decision and unlikely to be too happy. China and Russia, which have been part of the deal as well, will have every excuse for refusing to cooperate further. And we would probably find ourselves in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution that will be passed soon to formalize the deal.

GOP candidates nonetheless claim that after abandoning the deal, they would replace it by once again instituting tight economic sanctions against Iran. They have almost no chance of doing so.

The tight sanctions that have forced Iran to surrender 98 percent of its low-enriched uranium and agree to international inspections were possible only because we have had the cooperation of most of the world. They were never designed to be permanent, and were merely a means to force Iran to the table, which they did.

If the United States unilaterally abandons this deal under a newly elected Republican president, Iran would be able to portray itself as the victim, as the country that abided by international law while we would be the rogue nation that broke it. Under those circumstances, we would have no chance of getting international cooperation for a new set of sanctions.

And with the deal broken, with our international support evaporating, we would have two options: Allowing Iran to resume its march toward a nuclear weapon, or war that we would largely have to fight ourselves, with all the blowback and other problems that would entail.

In short, the 2016 presidential campaign will become a referendum on which approach to take: War or peace?

Reader Comments 0

1235 comments
Dusty2
Dusty2

Oh yawn.. Debbie do Little is back from her meeting with the "REVISE HISTORY GROUP" and takes a few  air slaps at Bush ( who couldn't care less about trivia). 


She could spend her time better reading Thomas Sowell's piece in today's AJC.  Now there' a man of peace, good sense and good will..   . 

SFM_Scootter
SFM_Scootter

Looks like the boys and girls are having a great time swapping playground retorts.Can I play? Please,pretty please with a cherry on top.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

Figured this needed to be highlighted again.  One republican's view of how Iraq came to be the stronghold of ISIS and why we need a deal to slow down Iran:


Sean, the reason Iran’s going to have a power in the gulf because YOUR president George W. Bush invaded Iraq and turned it into an ally of Iran.

The reason we're in this position is because Saddam Hussein, a thug, was overthrown, his state was destroyed, his army was broken up, elections were held by Bush, democracy crusade and the Shia won and we LOST control of Iraq. 

JamVet
JamVet

While civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) talked about being surrounded by hostile onlookers waving Confederate flags as he marched in Alabama, beaten close to death, the best his state colleague Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland could muster was a pathetic whine, “The question is, does [Lewis] understand where I’m coming from?

JamVet
JamVet

@DownInAlbany @JamVet 

Of course...

And had you read got's link a few minutes ago, you'd know.

There is other great info in there like:

You’d think that a move to prohibit flying a symbol of racism and treason on federal grounds would be uncontroversial. But only one Republican was reasonable enough to agree...

That aside, an interesting observation that displays the great difference between those two men, yes?

http://thehill.com/opinion/markos-moulitsas/247942-markos-moulitsas-party-of-lincoln-no-more

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

 The bottom line is that Iran has been at war with the United States for the last 36 years


A ridiculous statement. 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@HeadleyLamar Another war being waged on our behalf without paying taxes for it?  I must have missed all those American soldiers on the border of Iran....

straker
straker

Down - "Iran has been at war with the US for the last 36 years"


So, I guess we should just invade them and take over?

KUTGF
KUTGF

@straker  Well Tom Cotton has said: 

“This president has a bad habit of accusing other people of making false choices, but he presented the ultimate false choice last week when he said it’s either this deal or war,” Cotton said, before adding, that “Even if military action were required…the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq and that’s simply not the case.”

“It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox,” he continued. “Several days air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we’re asking is that the president simply be as tough as in the protection of America’s national security interest as Bill Clinton was.”


Its a "cakewalk" just like Iraq.  ;)

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

Republican Presidential candidates are going to have a hard time selling "I'll break the deal" to the American electorate, I think, just as they'll have a hard time selling "repeal and replace" of the PPACA without a definite replacement plan.  Such positions may get them the nomination, but are a total non-starter with independent voters.

They're going to have to come up with a list of programs they want to implement, not just a list to "repeal and replace."

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Nick_Danger --  "They're going to have to come up with a list of programs they want to implement, not just a list to "repeal and replace."


Don't hold your breath..............

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@DownInAlbany @Nick_Danger 

DiA, I'm just curious about how they intend to play this.  I know they're not stupid, and I doubt that they are so misinformed that they believe this is a winning stratagem.

My guess is that the republican nominee will do what they've done the last several cycles - move right for the nomination, and tack back to the center for the election.  That hasn't worked yet (it's hard to both agree with and disavow the far-right positions they took in the primary), and isn't likely to.

I suppose I hope for either a candidate to refuse to tack back to the center, or refuse to pander to the far-right in the first place.  I just see it as extremely difficult for a republican to win the election, and that is not healthy for the United States.

JamVet
JamVet

@gotalife 

It’s a GOP transforming from a party of self-styled “patriots” to one embracing the biggest symbol of treason in our nation’s history. 

So Republican California Rep. Ken Calvert introduced an amendment that would reverse that flag ban. 

“The amendment offered last night … was brought to me by Leadership at the request of some southern Members of the Republican Caucus,” he claimed in a statement, dubiously putting blame on the same leadership that had quietly acceded to the original flag ban amendments. 

In any case, GOP House leadership responded by shutting down the vote on the entire Interior Department appropriations bill, lest they suffer the spectacle of hundreds of Republicans voting to save the Confederacy. 

So, to reiterate, the GOP leadership had to cancel a major vote because it didn’t want to remind the country that its elected officials are utterly beholden to racists.

gotalife
gotalife

White House backs House GOP highway fix

Keith Laing - 07/15/15 09:54 AM EDT

The president will sign an $8 billion extension the House is voting on Wednesday. 


Another gop failure.


You can count on the gop to fail so they should disband and dissolve corrupt congress.


No trust or confidence means they have to go.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@gotalife -- They've gone mad with the little bit of power that they've been given. We already know that Republicans' first, last and ONLY priority is NOT the safety, welfare, and defense of the USA; their only priority is to get re-elected and they'll tell their dumbed down voting block anything they want to hear.  

If that was all it was, I'd be more content and let them "lie" in peace; but we've all seen what happens when the republicans are given free reign at the government helm.  They crash the US and the economy quicker than the Titanic crashed into that iceberg.

They are unfit to lead -- at least until they have effective, intelligent and smart leaders. The problem with that is because of their dumbed down voting populace, those intelligent and smart leaders NEVER get elected.  Instead they elect someone like Ted Cruz as their mouthpieces.  Truth  really is stranger than fiction.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@HeadleyLamar 

Just western propaganda comrade ?

**

Let's see, we've got the Dutch Safety Board, the NTSB, and other representatives such as the FAA and Boeing. 

Are these organizations likely to be more friendly to a Washington narrative of the Ukraine crisis or the Russian one?

So I don't know, comrade, you tell me. Is it just propaganda?

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime @HeadleyLamar  So I don't know, comrade, you tell me. Is it just propaganda?


That would be the conspiracy theory . That they are all just following marching orders from Washington. Including the Dutch.


Me I think they are just telling the truth. Especially considering all empirical evidence is pointing that way. 

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are highlighting the history-making qualities of their proposed Iran deal, and that’s the one thing they got right: this deal makes history.

This deal reflects a profound shift away from the way America deals with dictatorial regimes– in this case, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. This deal rewards Iran to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars that will allow them to continue conduct business as usual, giving nothing up in return.

The sanctions Iran has been living under are not some arbitrary measures to punish a country without reason. Congress passed many of these sanctions and others were approved by a UN Security Council that included China and Russia. The billions of dollars in sanctions relief in this deal mean that we have essentially chosen to fund an Iranian revival that creates a new superpower in the region.

The biggest beneficiaries of President Obama’s foreign policy in his tenure have been Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and, now, the Ayatollahs in Iran.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/14/obamas-foreign-policy-achievements-wins-for-putin-castro-and-now-the-ayatollahs/

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@DebbieDoRight @DownInAlbany The bottom line is that Iran has been at war with the United States for the last 36 years, and we have just allowed them to declare victory so that this president’s memoirs can wax poetic about how he worked toward peace in the Middle East.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@DownInAlbany --- Every time you post anything with a link, the first thing i do is look at the link.  Breibart.com was a dead give away, so no need to even read further...........

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@DownInAlbany The bottom line is that the US has been at war with Iran for the same period of time . . . this after helping to overthrown a democratically elected government. 


So you can wax poetic how the US has worked towards peace in the ME. The Iranians don't share that POV. 


And most times with other countries you have to deal with the reality as they see it as well as the reality you want it to be.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@DownInAlbany 36 years of war?  Wonder why you did not start with the 1970s....oh that's right.  Reagan sold them weapons illegally. 

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@DownInAlbany 

It's always amusing to see DiA spamming Dead Breitbart opinion pieces as if they had any meaning...

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@DownInAlbany @DebbieDoRight 

"The bottom line is that Iran has been at war with the United States for the last 36 years..."

You're saying RR commited treason when he sold weapons to Iran, a country with which we were (are) "at war"?

That's a pretty serious charge to say that President Reagan committed treason!

JamVet
JamVet

@DownInAlbany @DebbieDoRight 

Declared victory???????????????????????????????

Wow.

They have won nothing.

Except perhaps your higher respect for their government than your own country's...


DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@DownInAlbany @Nick_Danger --  You guys aren't seeking the truth, you're seeking validation for your prejudices and bigotry.  An informal, "moderate" newspaper won't give you that, hence your slavish devotion to places like Breitbart.com.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@fedup52 Yeah, especially after Obama's attempts to sway their most recent election, right?

gotalife
gotalife

@fedup52  Bringing him to speak in Congress was a huge mistake by the gop. It backfired like most gop actions. The rw that gave Iraq to Iran to make Iran more powerful can shut it.

fedup52
fedup52

@DownInAlbany @fedup52 Not before he decided to speak in the Congress.  Eye for an eye.

So far Israel has not a produced a leader like Rabin and the cons murdered him in broad day light.

Cupofjoe
Cupofjoe

gotta have attention-

Yes-  I am truly a banker lover???

By the way shows your extreme ignorance of how banking works.  You may want to switch to reading more fiction sunshine.

gotalife
gotalife

@Cupofjoe  I don't read fiction banker lover. Bail that out with socialism failure.