Obama Caves Again

Weeks ago, Iran told us that it would refuse to allow U.S. personnel to serve on the international inspection teams responsible for verifying Tehran’s compliance with the proposed nuclear deal. That should have been a non-starter for any American administration, but the Obama/Kerry team accepted it.

Now the regime is making even more demands. [Monday], Iran’s deputy foreign minister claimed that every U.N. inspector must be vetted and approved by Iran’s intelligence service.

Sayyed Abbas Araqchi said, “Any individual, out of [the International Atomic Energy Agency’s] inspection group, who is not approved by the Islamic of Republic of Iran cannot enter the country as the agency’s inspector.”

Former Pentagon adviser Michael Rubin blasted this latest concession, saying:

“Administration claims that this was the best possible agreement are pathetic. First Kerry abandoned anytime, anywhere inspections. … Then we learned that no Americans are allowed on the inspection teams and that Iran will do its own soil sampling. Now the Iranians claim that all IAEA inspectors have to be vetted by Iranian intelligence? It really can’t get any worse than this.”

This deal gets us nothing. Some have naively suggested that the deal strengthens the hands of moderates in Iran. But the moderates are not in charge. Iran is a dictatorship run by Ayatollah Khamenei, who routinely chants, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

The ayatollah isn’t moderating nor does he see this deal as a breakthrough in relations. According to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, the ayatollah yesterday “made it clear that Tehran’s policy toward the U.S. will remain unchanged.” That policy is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Don’t take my word for it. [Monday] the ayatollah tweeted: “We support resistance in Palestine and the region, and take all possible means to support anyone who fights Israel, is against the Zionist regime and supports resistance.”

Check out this video showing an Iranian conquest of Jerusalem.

Corker Opposes Iranian Deal

Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced his opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal [Tuesday] in a Washington Post op-ed. Here are some excerpts:

“Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. For a deal that must be built on verification and not trust, the inspections process is deeply flawed. …

"The administration has repeatedly stated that this agreement is about ensuring Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. Therefore, the agreement should be one that allows us to maintain leverage and ensure it is enforceable, is verifiable and holds Iran accountable.

"This deal does not do that and instead leaves the United States vulnerable to a resurgent Iran wealthier and more able to work its will in the Middle East. Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Who Is Fringe?

Donald Trump is once again driving the debate. He released details of his immigration plans this week, and the talking heads are apoplectic. Some are saying his proposals are impractical, if not impossible, and portray him as a “fringe” candidate.

Really?

The pundits and politicians who claim it is impossible to secure the border and make excuses for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country are surrendering the concept of nationhood. That is a fringe idea in my view.

As Byron York of the Washington Examiner notes, Trump’s views on immigration are closer to the mainstream than those advocating amnesty. York points to a recent academic study that tested a variety of immigration-related policy proposals.

Open borders got 5% support. In total, the left-of-center proposals stressing high levels of immigration attracted 45% support.

The most conservative options, those stressing border security and limiting immigration to highly-skilled workers attracted 55% support. The study’s authors noted, “Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse.”

As I have been writing for years, our cultural and political elites are the ones on the fringe.