nuclear deal
167 pieces tagged “nuclear deal”, newest first.
Kerry Is Clueless, Anti-Semitism In America, Clinton Chaos
Secretary of State John Kerry is the man who negotiated the nuclear deal with the ayatollah's representatives from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would be reassuring to know that our negotiators are sophisticated and understand the dangers confronting the free world. Critics of the deal have been deeply concerned from the beginning about the extent of the concessions Kerry made to appease the Iranians. An interview Kerry recently did with The Atlantic explains a lot.
Responses to the President's Arguments for the Nuclear Deal
At American University last week, President Barack Obama gave a vigorous defense of the Iran nuclear agreement. In the belief that every student who was present — indeed, all Americans — should hear the other side, here are responses to claims the president made. (For the information of my readers, I made a Prager University video on the agreement released last week that has about five million views on YouTube and Facebook — found at www.prageruniversity.com. Americans obviously want clarity on this issue.)
Obama: 'My Nuclear Deal Is Just Like Reagan and the Soviets'
Republicans "are going to be opposed to anything that I do."
Democrats Seek to Punish Schumer Over Iran Deal Dissent
The knives are out for the would-be Senate leader.
No Sale, Mr. Obama
Did you catch President Obama's sales speech for his Iranian nuclear deal at American University? My head is still spinning and I think I did something to my back trying to follow the president's arguments on Wednesday afternoon. Basically, the president said if Congress doesn't approve the treaty that he, John Kerry and his State Department softball team made with the ayatollahs, three bad things are gonna happen.
Just Who Is Helping Iran's Hard-Liners?
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the American public rejects the president's Iran deal by more than 2-to-1. This is astonishing. The public generally gives the president deference on major treaties. Just a few weeks ago, a majority supported the deal. What happened? People learned what's in it. And don't be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administration's position *in the very question*. The Washington Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, "international inspectors would monitor Iran's facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?"
Obama, Not His Opponents, Is Falsely Advertising His Iran Deal
Am I the only one getting tired of President Obama constantly berating his political opponents and accusing them of being bought? Well, he is doing it again, on his Iran nuke deal. You can always tell when Obama is nervous about a policy proposal, because he won't stop talking about it. As disturbing as Obama's militant partisanship is, what's worse is his delusional perception that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically unreasonable and corrupt.
Iran Deal Is Obama's Foreign Policy ObamaCare
President Obama's sordid Iran nuke deal is looking more and more like the foreign policy version of Obamacare. It's duplicitous, secretive, destructive and legacy-driven, and he's going to have to go full community organizer to get it passed. This deal was born in hell. It is the culmination of Obama's dangerously flawed philosophy that you enhance national security through appeasement. If we can secure a deal with Satan's stepchild, after all, we can remake the globe into the peaceful utopia progressives romantically envision. Never mind that this terrorist theocracy, by its own admission, is immune to rehabilitation. "Death to America, death to Israel." Even in the midst of negotiations with the Obama regime, the mullahs didn't bother to pretend they had goodwill toward us.
Obama Bets Nuclear Deal Will Change Iran's Regime; Few Agree
"Faute de mieux." That means "for want of something better" in Secretary of State John Kerry's second language. It's also the best case made by its journalistic defenders for approval of the nuclear weapons deal Kerry negotiated with Iran. Or to be more exact, for rallying 34 votes in the Senate or 146 votes in the House to uphold a presidential veto of a congressional vote to disapprove. It's a measure of the weakness of the deal that such a grudging argument is needed to rally such an unimpressive proportion of members of Congress. New York Times reporter Thomas Friedman, generally a supporter of Barack Obama's policies, makes the "faute de mieux" argument explicitly. But he also adds some conditions — er, recommendations — to his endorsement, which aren't likely to be congenial to the president.
Will Jewish Democrats Sink Iran Deal?
"Seven Jewish Lawmakers Could Tilt the Scales on Iran Deal," headlines The Times of Israel. The members — Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Steven Israel, Rep. Eliot Engel, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Nita Lowey, Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Ted Deutch — are all Democrats. They must choose between loyalty to their party's president and concern about what the deal portends for Israeli and American security. There are long and short answers to the question: "Why are Jews liberal?" The long answer traces back to the Enlightenment in Europe, when parties of the right were monarchist and anti-Semitic, while parties of the left favored pluralism and religious freedom. I don't buy the long argument. Tsar Alexander III, who instigated pogroms against the Jews, is long dead. So is Napoleon, who liberated them. In the meantime, Jews have suffered under communists, who proved just as cruel as the monarchists.
With Iran Deal, Obama Makes Bad History
It came two days after the announcement of the nuclear agreement with Iran, yet little mention was made on July 16 of the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear explosion, near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The anniversary underscored that the agreement attempts to thwart proliferation of technology seven decades old. Nuclear-weapons technology has become markedly more sophisticated since 1945. But not so sophisticated that nations with sufficient money and determination cannot master or acquire it. Iran's determination is probably related to America's demonstration, in Iraq and Libya, of the perils of not having nuclear weapons. Critics who think more severe sanctions are achievable and would break Iran's determination must answer this: When have sanctions caused a large nation to surrender what it considers a vital national security interest? Critics have, however, amply demonstrated two things: