Op-ed:
Trump: The End of the Deal
By: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / Right Side Patriots on American
Political Radio
“I am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this
certification...We will not continue down a path whose predictable
conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of
Iran's nuclear breakthrough.”
- President Donald Trump
Last Friday, after listing all of Iran's past and present nasty
deeds and nuclear deal violations...our president under the guise of
the 'Congressional Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act' rightfully
decided not to 'recertify' Obama's 'very bad' nuclear deal...a deal
subject to recertification every 90 days.
A campaign promise kept and thank you Mr. President for doing so.
See President Trump's Iranian speech in its entirety here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8YXOdXqpVI
And while what he did was truly a very good thing, the question for
some remains did President Trump go far enough in distancing the U.S. from
what he himself calls "one of the worst and most
one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into."
And did
he send that much needed and all-powerful message to
both Iran and the world that America is back on top...that it is
America who will now be calling the shots when it comes to those
behaving badly. The answer to both questions cannot be answered with
a simple yes or no, but must for the time being be answered with a
maybe and we will tell you why.
So while we understand the legalities as to why President Trump
did not withdraw us now and why he sent the deal back to Congress to
'fix' if you will...basically putting it on Congress' shoulders to
decide whether to reimpose sanctions...which could actually sink the
deal...or use the threat of sanctions to force Iran and the P5+1 back
to the negotiating table to make changes to the deal...the problem is
that with Congress having 60 days in which to do so means that Iran
also has 60 more days in which they can continue to behave badly even
though the timetable for them to do so was set in place with the
election of Donald Trump.
"I am directing my administration to work closely with
Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so
the regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons," said President Trump.
Serious flaws indeed including flaws in the actual construction of
the deal itself for the fact is that Obama preempted congressional
review of this deal by going after and getting the then 41 votes
needed to approve the U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the
JCPOA before Congress had even started its own required review. And
lets not forget that under the Constitution treaties require support
of two-thirds of the Senate and with the Iranian deal being a treaty
in every respect...as in its being a legally binding long-term
agreement between sovereign nations which is the definition of a
treaty...Obama did indeed break the law by not securing the 67 votes
needed and got away with it.
And with President Trump added to his words spoken that if Congress
and our allies cannot reach a solution to Iran's current violations
and are unable to come up with both language and terms that, in his
opinion, will improve the agreement what with "the deal under
continuous review," that as president he can
unilaterally withdraw us from "the deal at any time."
And those words were met with challenges from Democrats...including
Democrats like Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y) who split with Obama and
opposed the nuclear deal. Now urging Trump to uphold the international
accord, he and others claim that "robust enforcement"
is the best way to counter Tehran's malign behavior in the Middle
East, and that "unwinding the agreement" would send
a dangerous message to both allies and adversaries alike.
But even if opposing views were pushed aside and a uniting of
sorts of those on both sides of the political aisle took place, what
could Congress really do but decide whether to reimpose the economic
sanctions on Iran that under Obama's deal were lifted...as in remember the 1.7
billion dollars Obama happily gave to Iran even before all the signatures
on the deal paper had dried.
And President Trump knows well that for the most part sanctions themselves
do not work and that what really should be addressed by Congress is
how to stop Iran from enriching any uranium at all; how to stop Iran
from operating its plutonium-producing heavy water reactor; how to
toughen up the deal's current weak inspection provisions; or else
give him full congressional support to withdraw us from a deal that
should never have been entered into in the first place.
And why do we say this besides the obvious being that Iran is the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism...we say it because a
previously signed treaty was twisted by Obama to suit his agenda and
sadly forgotten by most...a treaty that should have prevented Obama
from ever having proposed the Iranian nuclear deal in the first
place.
On July 1, 1968, the 'Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty' (NPT) was ratified and signed by the United
States, the Soviet Union, the Republic of China, France, the United Kingdom, and 40 other countries including Iran (with 189 countries eventually became party to it). This treaty's main objectives and goals were then..and still remain now...to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to
promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to
further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and
complete disarmament. This treaty, if it had been adhered to, should have taken precedence over any and all other nuclear
treaties including the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA).
In August 2015, the P5+1 signed the JCPOA no matter that behind
the scenes questions remained as to where the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty fell in regards to this new just agreed to nuclear treaty.
Answered with veiled innuendos that while the NPT was the "central
pillar" of any and all non-proliferation dealings and that
it would allow its signer nations to better manage future
proliferation threats, the wording and meaning in what the NPT stated
and in what JCPOA stated were twisting by Obama to fit his agenda.
And in Obama's pushing to the P5+1 the false narrative that the JCPOA
reflected the reality that today's non-proliferation had already
expanded well beyond that stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does
not mean that said Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action trumped then or
negates now the treaty that Iran had previously both signed and ratified.
Siding with Iran's argument that as per Article IV* of said
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they had the "unalienable right"
to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes... purposes we and Obama knew
were anything but peaceful...it becomes obvious that Obama never
wanted us to know that nowhere in Article IV's wording does it
directly reference either the actual right to or not to enrich
uranium.
However, this ambiguity in Article IV's wording allowed
Obama to negate previous administration's words that, “it has
always been the U.S. position that article IV of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment
at all [and] doesn’t speak to enrichment, period”...thus
allowing him to convince any
dissenting voices in the P5+1, and even within our own Congress, that
Iran did indeed have the "unalienable right" to
enrich uranium and to do so at the time of their choosing.
And while our government has in the past recognized the
"legitimacy of peaceful uranium enrichment" by other
signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, such recognition in no way
means uranium enrichment is a "unalienable right" as
Iran claims. And why...because most of the treaty's signers know that
uranium enrichment can be misused in a country's desire to build a
bomb of their own, which in turn could set off a new and even more
dangerous nuclear arms race what with Iran already in partnership
with rogue nation North Korea. And know that terrorist groups are weIrantting
their lips as they wait for Iran to become a recognized nuclear
power...a nuclear power who would willingly sell a nuclear bomb to the
highest anti-America, anti-Israel bidder.
And lets not forget that there is another provision within the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Obama and the P5+1 chose to ignore even
as Iran strove to become a nuclear power. This is in regards to the
actual monitoring and verification of Iran’s nuclear activities.
Article III of said treaty states that “Each
non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept
safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and
concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance
with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Agency’s safeguards system…” and Iran signed and ratified
this 'so-called' Safeguards Agreement in 1974.
But Iran fooled them all until the early 1990s when their
under-the-radar nuclear activities were exposed. Only then were
Additional Protocol (AP) regarding monitoring put into place while at
the same time said protocol was not made a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
obligation. This allowed Obama to use the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) reports from both June 2003 and September
2005...reports that did not find Iran in violation of the NPT but
reports only recommending that Iran cooperate with the IAEA by
providing more information regarding its suspected nuclear
activities...reports used to help him push The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
through Congressional review.
And it was Obama's deliberate but now exposed hiding of these facts
as to how he got this abomination of a deal in place that should
allow President Trump to withdraw from the deal with the "radical
regime" based upon the simple fact that "Iran is not
living up to the spirit of the deal.” And as for Congress they
would be wasting their time and energies in deciding if the reimposing of
sanctions would help to rein Iran in for the deal as written is but a
lie that a few tweaks here and there would do nothing to help resolve
the fundamental flaw in the deal itself ...that flaw being that thanks to Obama, in
the time since the deal was first signed, Iran has probably already
secured a nuclear weapon or two courtesy of their buddies in North
Korea...a weapon or two they have safely hidden away for use at the
time of their choosing.
So with President Trump planning to take immediate action against
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by authorizing the
Treasury Department to impose targeted sanctions against “its
officials, agents, and affiliates,” know
that Europe's islamic-condoning leaders have said they will
resist any attempts by Trump to reopen the nuclear deal. And with a
stalemate of sorts now in place the time for Iran to really behave
badly is probably edging closer than most people think what with the
likes of Germany's Angela Merkle helping to run cover for Iran.
According
to German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, obviously via Angela
Merkel, President Donald Trump’s decision not to recertify
the nuclear deal with Iran, and his announcement that he wants to
reimpose stiff sanctions on Iran, sends a "difficult and
dangerous signal" which could lead to Iran building nuclear
weapons and raise the danger of war close to Europe.
According
to Hillary Clinton, the hard lines President Donald Trump has taken
with both North Korea and now with Iran are damaging to America’s
standing on the world stage, and could provoke a nuclear arms race
in East Asia.
It
sounds to us as though Angela Merkel has been busy writing talking
points and Hillary is on her email list.
While
both liberals and conservatives in our country have a vast array of
opinions on how President Trump is responding to the duel threats
from North Korea and Iran, we need to look at the responses from
Germany and from Hillary Clinton separately before we look at the
abject insanity of their overall strategy.
First,
let’s have a look at Hillary’s vapid response to the hard lines
President Trump is currently taking.
It
was, after all, Hillary’s husband who made the deal with North
Korea that ultimately led that rogue, hermit nation to emerge from
the shadows replete with a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons with
which to threaten not only their region, but the rest of the world.
And it was Hillary’s handshake deal with the madman Kim Jong-un
which allowed that nuclear rogue nation to now build ballistic
missiles capable of reaching nearly any point in our country.
As
for Iran, it was Hillary Clinton, as Obama’s Secretary of State,
that led to the worst deal ever made, replete with a 'sunset clause'
that gives Tehran the green light to do whatever they want in the
realm of going nuclear with weapons and ballistic missiles without
any restrictions whatsoever, by the year 2025.
How
dare Hillary Clinton allege it is President Trump who has damaged America’s
standing on the world stage. Through Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the
deals with North Korea and Iran, Obama’s announcing to our enemies
specific dates when we would leave various theaters of war, and
Obama’s doctrine of creating vacuums of power in the Middle East
to be filled by 7th century barbaric regimes and various islamic terrorist organizations, that did the damage to our standing
on the world stage.
In
fact, between Hillary and Obama, they all but removed us from that
stage altogether.
Now,
as for Angela Merkel’s Germany…
Perhaps
neither Angela Merkel nor her sock-puppet of a Foreign Minister, Sigmar
Gabriel, have noticed, but the deal to which they seem to want kept
as is, in the most desperate way, actually paves the road to Iran
becoming a rogue nation led by 7th century barbarians in
possession of their very own stockpile of Iranian produced nuclear
weapons.
Blaming
President Trump for setting up that particular scenario is beyond
ridiculous, it’s transparently insane. How so? Well, the Iranian
nuclear deal itself, being toothless in every aspect and containing
that 'sunset clause' by which even the toothless restrictions would be
done away with after ten years, is what has directly led to Iran’s
ramped up nuclear weapons program.
That
deal, such as it is, is the world’s permission slip to Iran to
build as many nuclear weapons as possible.
But
that’s not the whole of it, and this is where we need to look at
the combination of the Merkel/Hillary response to the announcement
from President Trump that the Iranian nuclear deal would not be
recertified, would be altered with sharp teeth or torn up
altogether, as a singular response.
What
Hillary Clinton is parroting from Angela Merkel is a notion, a
strategy so absurd, so ultimately dangerous that it must be expose.
What
these two old hens are saying is that it is far better to appease
the world’s tyrants and barbarians than it is to hold them
accountable, and to stop them dead in their combined nuclear
ambition tracks. Yes, combined tracks because as we stated before
and have been stating for years, Iran and North Korea...where nuclear
arms are concerned...are inextricably linked together. Both of their
individual programs are benefitting the other in both their marches
towards the goal of nuclear attacks launched from their respective rogue
nations becoming a reality.
That
strategy is appeasement.
Just
as sanctions do not work, never have and never will, in the long
term appeasement has never nor will it ever work, because there
simply is no way on earth to appease madmen or barbarians into a
state of calm by which either will live peacefully with their
neighbors within their regions or on this planet.
Let’s
be clear about this...appeasement is not a foreign policy. What
appeasement is, is a tacit, informal surrender to one’s enemies.
Nothing less, and certainly nothing more.
Can
anyone name even a single time that appeasement was offered by a
burgeoning aggressor to a non-aggressor as a matter of foreign
policy? Of course not, as the burgeoning aggressor never has nor
ever will see a need to appease those they seek to destroy.
On
the other hand, perhaps the most famous case of appeasement turned
disaster was the abject failure of appeasement policy towards
Germany in the late 1930’s in a mindless attempt to reason with a
madman, Adolph Hitler, that turned what should have been Europe’s
problem into the Second World War.
It
has rightly been said that those who fail to learn from the
mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, and in that light,
looking at today’s situation with both North Korea and Iran, the
two being inexorably linked, only in the realm of how it effects the
here and now as per our own nation would exhibit, at best, two
dimensional thinking. Allow us to expand that line of thought to
three dimensions by providing three ways in which this all must be
viewed if one truly wants to get to the truth.
First...world
history is rife with many examples from the ancient Egyptians to the
Roman Empire, Genghis Kahn to Napoleon to Nazi Germany, and Imperial
Japan to today’s North Korean/Iranian situations where the
appeasers have been ground into powder and dust by the appeasees. Each group of
appeasers has failed to learn from the many mistakes of those who previously
attempted to appease those who were the aggressors, and time and
time again throughout history those on the receiving end of various
appeasement as foreign policy strategies overtook their appeasers
in acts of conquest.
Second...the
conquest of the appeasers throughout history nearly always begins
with the overtaking of the culture of the appeasers because those who
offer such appeasements seem to believe that the road to lasting peace
should always include allowing the aggressors full access to live amongst
them. Today, we can clearly see this in action as Merkel, and the
whole of Europe, has appeased islam by allowing unfettered access,
via a borderless region, to those intent on their destruction. That
is also a policy of appeasement championed by Hillary Clinton via
Barack HUSSEIN Obama in demanding that islam be imported into the
United States sans any semblance of a serious vetting process.
And
third...the Merkels and Hillary Clintons of today’s one world
government agenda seem to believe that the whole of the world would
be better served by allowing the North Korean and the Iranian rogue
regimes to possess nuclear weapons through appeasement as a foreign
policy strategy. By challenging President Donald Trump’s hard
lines against both rogue regimes, they claim that the world will be
more dangerous and less stable, if those two rogue regimes are
prevented from attaining their nuclear dreams.
In
case the world’s liberals haven’t noticed, the acquisition of
nuclear arms by both North Korea and Iran has already started the
nuclear arms race in both regions, In other words, the tacit
surrenders offered by the ilk of Hillary Clinton, Barack HUSSEIN
Obama, and Angela Merkel to both Iran and North Korea has spurred
those nation’s regional neighbors into seeking their own nuclear
arms as a means of both self-defense, and self-preservation...a
situation that can still be reversed if our nation, under President
Donald Trump, puts an end to the appeasements.
By
taking the hard lines against Iran and North Korea, by signaling to
the world that an end to the appeasements is not only in order, but
at hand, President Donald Trump is engaging in a foreign policy
strategy that is diametrically opposed to and the polar opposite of
the foreign policy of his predecessor, and that which would have
been furthered had Hillary Clinton won the election last
November. President Trump is putting America first rather than last
and leading from the front rather than from behind, both of which
is, to the chagrin of Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel,
reestablishing America at the front and center of the world stage.
Would
we have liked to have seen Obama’s 'very bad' deal with Iran torn to
shreds last week by President Donald Trump? Of course, but the
President, exhibiting his own three dimensional thinking, and having
learned from his own short history in office, has given Congress 60
days to rewrite our end of that 'very bad' deal, and one can suppose Iran
60 days to ramp up their nuclear efforts, but it’s still a great
deal better than giving Iran possibly a year or more which would be
the result should liberals chase this all through the courts in any
effort to block a presidential end-run around Congress.
The
bottom line is this...the nuclear proliferation of both Iran and
North Korea must be stopped, the cost of doing so will be high, but
nowhere near as high as would be the cost should continued
appeasement be the foreign policy strategy by which either we or
the world proceed. Throughout history hard line strategies have
ended the tyrannies of madmen and barbarians, and the hard lines
currently being undertaken by President Donald Trump will prove to
be the correct strategy.
________________________________
*Article IV: “nothing in this Treaty shall be
interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to
the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with
Articles I and II of this Treaty.”
Copyright © 2017 Diane Sori and
Craig Andresen / Right Side Patriots / All rights reserved.
***********************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!
Today, Tuesday, October 17th from 7 to 9pm EST on
American
Political Radio,
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori
discuss California's big mistake, Columbus Day vs liberals, and President Trump takes a hard line on Iran.
Hope you can tune in at:
http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history
The FBI records vault released a series of draft statements Monday
afternoon authored by former FBI Director James Comey. The drafts are
about the conclusion of the criminal investigation into former Democrat
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server
to host and transmit top secret information.
