Speaking at American University in Washington today, President Barack Obama lambasted Congress daring to oppose his Iran nuke deal negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry with his Iranian counterpart Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif over the last two years. “I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments holds up,” Obama told a partisan American University audience. Obama believes without the deal it pushes the U.S. closer to a new Mideast war, one with a more technologically advanced enemy in Iran. “They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now,” ripping Capitol Hill hawks that backed former President George W. Bush preemptive war in Iraq. Insisting Americans “still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq,” Obama ratcheted up the anti-GOP rhetoric.
As the 2016 election draws closer and the campaign officially kicks off Aug. 6 with the first Fox News GOP debate, Obama has become more aggressive, less diplomatic in his tone. Since passing Obamacare March 23, 2010 over Republican objections, Barack has had a poor relationship with Congress, especially the growing GOP opposition. He found out the hard way that if you railroad legislation against the opposition, like he did with Obamacare, it’s not the way to win friends and influence the GOP on Capitol Hill. Obama reminded the GOP that the nation continues to deal with the consequences of the Iraq War, understating how it actually destabilized the entire Mideast, leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS]. Instead of leveling with Congress about the pros-and-cons of the agreement, Barack blamed the GOP for causing the whole mess.
When House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress March 3, the White House got bent out of shape, crying a breach-of-protocol. While Netanyahu gave his reasons for rejecting the Iran nuke deal, Congress was forced to also weigh the pros-and-cons, not just take either side for granted. Netanyahu’s main premise fingers Iran as an “existential threat,” namely, if they had a nuclear bomb, they’d drop it on Israel. Netanyahu bases his assumptions on hostile comments from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said in 2005 he’d like to “wipe Israel off the map.” Other than idle threats and hostile rhetoric, Netanyahu has no proof that Iran’s Mullahs, with or without a nuclear weapon, would try to annihilate the Jewish State.
Hostile rhetoric between Netanyahu and Iran has been going back-and-forth since Ahamdinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and, throwing salt in the wound, hosting a 2006 Holocaust deniers’ conference in Tehran. Weighing out the pros-and-cons of the July 14 Iran nuke deal hasn’t been easy with propaganda flowing freely on both sides. Obama’s 100% right that the agreement isn’t just between the U.S. and Iran but instead involves the P5+1, including the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Whatever the agreement’s shortcomings, including giving Iran wiggle room to cheat, an international agreement is better than no agreement. If Iran does cheat, there are “snap-back” provisions to return to the punitive economic sanctions restricting Iran’s global oil sales. Opponents, like Netanyahu, argue that without the sanctions, Iran has more capital to pursue an A-bomb.
Iran’s nuclear program dates back to the 1950s with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi getting U.S. help. Declaring Iran a “nuclear state” Feb. 11, 2010, Ahmadinejad wasn’t only referring to Iran’s capacity to manufacture reactor fuel or medical isotopes. With Iran’s formidable stockpile of A.Q. Khan-type centrifuges busy spinning Yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas, Ahamadinejad alluded to Iran’s growing arsenal of weapons grade uranium. Obama told the American University audience if the U.S. rejected the nuke deal, most of the international sanctions would be lifted, leading future U.S. leaders closer to military action. “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now but soon,” said Obama, overstating the case because military action won’t happen under his watch.
Hoping to persuade Congress to pass the July 14 Iran nuke deal, Obama raises more doubts trying to oversell his case for approval. If Barack just told Congress it’s the best possible deal to protect Israel, he’d have more receptivity especially among skeptical Democrats, like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress resonated with GOP detractors, too busy fighting partisan battles to hand Barack a victory during an Election Year. “I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong,” said Obama, referring to Netanyahu’s firm belief that the nuke deal compromises Israel’s national security. Where Nentanyahu goes off the rails is taking at face value past Iranian threats, more designed to pander to Iran’s conservative Revolutionary Guards and Basij Militia. Whether Netanyahu sees it or not, the P5+1 nuke deal forces Iran to conform to some international standards.
