Friday, March 29, 2024
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Lonely Pamphleteer Review Questions and Observations Related to the Iran Nuclear Deal

September 5, 2015 --

President Obama has acknowledged that Iran is not to be trusted and that is why the Iran deal "relies on verification and our capacity to catch them when they cheat"?
The usual formula, however, goes this way: "trust -- but verify." Do verification procedures have any effect regarding an untrustworthy regime? Inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities will not be "anytime, anywhere," and Iran will be shielded by a 24-day delay should disputes arise. Under these provisions, why isn't verification meaningless?

President Obama has also acknowledged "Iran is antagonistic to the United States," " is anti-Semitic," "has called for the destruction of Israel" and "is an unsavory regime." The New York Times, in an editorial August 29, acknowledged that Iran has a "sordid record of sponsoring extremist groups and terrorist acts." Can Iran be said to have a peace-loving government? (The Times, nevertheless, went on to assert that the "agreement...is unquestionably in America's interests." LPR, obviously, rejects the paper's apparent intention to rule out questions about the Iran matter.)

Proponents of the Iran deal say that the choice is this deal or war. Isn't this choice an ultimatum? If so, did the ultimatum arise in Tehran?

The New York Times August 29 editorial mentioned that the administration "still plans to inflict severe penalties on Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism and support for military proxies."
If President Obama is willing to "inflict severe penalties on Iran for "non-nuclear" issues, why are we more flexible concerning nuclear matters?

The Times August 29 editorial also commented that it is the "job" of "Mr. Obama and the leaders of the other major powers that helped to negotiate the nuclear deal...to keep the pressure on Iran to reform its ways...."

One of those "major powers" is Russia, which itself has been targeted for sanctions --for its Ukraine policy. Rather than a reset button, does the administration have an on-off switch in working with Moscow on international issues?

As it has been generally conceded that Iran sponsors terrorism on an international scale, is it permissible to inquire as to the purpose of the terrorism sponsored by Iran?

Iran is an Islamic republic and, therefore, is a theocratic state. Is it permissible to inquire how Islamist theology -- from a Shiite worldview -- impacts Iran's foreign policy? In particular, is it permissible to inquire if the Islamic call to jihad offers the basis for Iran's call for the annihilation of the Jewish state?

President Obama has indicated that Washington will work with Israel to counter a military threat to Israel from the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Should Hezbollah attack Israel, will the Obama administration caution Israel to use restraint, to avoid a "disproportionate" response, and, above all, not to inflict civilian casualties?

Does the Obama administration demand that Israel absorb a first strike from Iran? If such a first strike were nuclear, what would be left of Israel to respond?

President Obama addressed Jewish organizations by webcast on August 28. Is the Iran deal a Jewish issue or an American issue. If it is an American issue, why the focus on Jewish officials and American Jews?

If the deal proves unworkable, will President Obama ask Congress to declare war on Iran?