Nuclear deal: release felons but ignore Iran’s wrongly imprisoned Americans

So much is untenable of the proposed deal with Iran that purportedly negates their capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, that President Obama’s zeal to promote the agreement is, using terminology from his July 14, 2015 press conference, “illogical.” Despite the president stating there is “no dispute” that Iran’s nuclear capability will be reined-in, there is indeed a point of dispute based on Iran’s past unwillingness to abide by agreements. That he would expect Iran to adhere to any agreement when, during the talks their government encourages burning of American and Israeli flags while demonstrators stridently yell “death to America,” is evidence to the contrary. As well, despite the president stating otherwise, America did have diplomatic leverage to pressure Iran to abandon the nuclear program… that is, until the president gave it all away via dispensing with sanctions willy-nilly.

---

Then, when asked about the “windfall of billions” that Obama claims Iran will use to boost their economy when those sanctions are dropped, his answer was circular. Saying that the billions blocked from use were Iran’s own money, his elaboration – that Iran pursued its nuclear program because sanctions denied them access to their own funds – entered the realm of utter nonsense. What connection is there between spending billions of ‘found’ money on nuclear weapons rather than spending the nonexistent (i.e. blocked) funds on other vital economy-building efforts? None. Another example of the president’s lack of logic. Asked about the refusal to press for the release of the political prisoners held and brutalized by Iran, the president glibly set it aside by focusing on the question’s characterization that he was content with the result and celebrated while the prisoners languished. His argument that adding the prisoners’ release to the negotiations as being off-point, unusual and alienating to Iran, was even more illogical. Prisoner exchange for concessions is normal in negotiations between adversaries. In a roundabout way, the next questions brought Obama to the point of lauding felons released from American jails as being untapped resources of a strong America. Again, where is the logic of ignoring the wrongful incarceration of an American pastor for building an orphanage or a journalist for reporting on baseball’s growing popularity in Iran, yet lobbying for pardoning felons who perpetrated so-called victimless drug crimes and releasing violent illegal immigrant offenders? There is none, other than the advocacy of a progressive worldview that felony activity is a byproduct of society’s lack of caring – hence the commuting of sentences, instituting early childhood programming, re-designing suburbs and subsidizing lawless bordercrashers. In the president’s eyes, upstanding citizens abused by a rogue state are unworthy of mention but criminals in U.S. jails deserve compassionate pardons. President Obama also said that negotiation cannot be engaged if both sides aren’t trusting. The fact is, negotiations aren’t possible when only one party buys into trust and capitulates accordingly, which is precisely what the United States and other sanctioning nations have done. One thing is clear, purposeful and successful negotiations are not possible, let alone probable, if one party is devoted to a peaceful conclusion and the other lives by, and is only impressed by, force. When one party believes coexistence exemplifies contemptible weakness, diplomacy is not a viable option. Pacifism only works when one pacifist treats with another pacifist. Upon trying to answer how he would manage Iran should it “cheat” and continue pursuing nuclear weapons, the president attempted to explain scenarios that were, if anything, pointless. He placed reliance on impotent international law, for breaching of which he had no response as to how punishment would or could be administered. Example: sure, arms shipments by Iran to Hezb’ollah or Hamas would be interdicted according to international law, but that would occur only IF authorities could find them. And what good would that do? The only accomplishment would be the collection of one among dozens of scheduled arms shipments to U.S. enemies and terrorist organizations. In effect, the threat of penalty is empty since there is no likelihood of reinstating economic sanctions once they’ve been lifted and there are no other enforceable consequences. If, according to the president, this deal with Iran is smart negotiation then he is demeaning the intelligence of the majority of Americans who heartily disagree. Obama, telling the public that this agreement is a result of logic, identifies the fact that either our president is himself illogical, or that he has another agenda for which this agreement would be a logical outcome. The latter conclusion leads to the unsavory conjecture that the president may be serving a purpose other than protecting America and its allies from nations with evil intent.