Thursday, March 28, 2024
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Citing a Curious Treasury Department September 1, 2015

September 19, 2015 --

The nuclear deal with Iran "makes the United States and Israel more secure by foreclosing Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Sanctions relief...will only occur after the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified that Iran has completed key nuclear steps--and even them, with narrow exceptions, this relief only applies to the United States' nuclear-related secondary sanctions. This means that we will maintain an array of authorities to counter Iran's ongoing illicit conduct. Our trade embargo on Iran will remain in effect except for narrow exceptions and we will not lift sanctions that target Iran's support for terrorist groups, its abuses of human rights, or its destabilizing activities in the region." [Why did the U.S. Treasury Department speak for Israel in this statement?]

The statement, in the next paragraph, declares: "The United States sees Iran clearly for what it is: the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and destabilizing for in the region."

If Iran is "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," how can Iran be considered a peace-loving state? LPR thought that the Charter of the United Nations requires UN members to be "peace-loving." If Iran is not "peace-loving," why isn't the Obama administration leading a move to suspend Tehran's UN membership, rather than demolishing the Constitution's treaty-ratifying procedure?

Note, too, the Treasury Department's assertion that the "deal" will not end sanctions against Iran for its "ongoing illicit conduct." Yet, congressional Democrats, according to The New York Times, September 3, supported the "deal" because foreign leaders warned "that their own sanctions against Iran would be lifted regardless of what the United States did." Democrat supported the "deal" because other countries would lift sanctions while Washington will maintain sanctions against Iran for its support of terrorism? Sorry, this does not make sense.

But then, that is what arbitrary rule is all about: it doesn't make sense -- except to those wielding power. Our Founding Fathers drafted a Constitution intended, by a system of checks and balances, to prevent arbitrary rule. LPR accuses the Republican leadership of cooperating with power-hungry Democrats to undermine the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend and to transform the federal government into an imperial presidency.