-
I too am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. It's a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others including its own people on its hands. Its political rallies resound with cries of 'Death to America.' Its leaders talk about wiping Israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday. ... There's absolutely no reason to trust Iran. ... We should anticipate that Iran will test the next president. They'll want to see how far they can bend the rules.
The New York Times gushed in response:
-
Mrs. Clinton’s speech, at the Brookings Institution, amounted to a strong endorsement of the deal struck by President Obama and her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry.
On the contrary, if Ms. Clinton's assessment that Iran will try to cheat on the accord is correct, then, it is likewise a foregone conclusion that the US will eventually be forced to go to war with Iran. For, if it is certain that Iran is going to try to cheat on the accord, how else will the US be able to respond other than by going to war? It is obvious that the Iranians will not stop developing nuclear weapons until they are forced to stop. Why should they? So far the only pressure that has been brought to bear on them is a round of negotiations that has given them most everything they wanted. So, if it is truly imperative that they be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, we will need use force to do so. Ms. Clinton's statement is simply an acknowledgment of that reality.
But, if that is the case, then Ms Clinton' speech, far from being a "strong endorsement" of President Obama's deal, constitutes instead the strongest possible argument against the accord. For, if it is certain that the Iranians will try to cheat on the deal, then, why on earth would it make any sense for the US to enter into the deal in the first place? It would be far better to go to war with Iran immediately. To do otherwise is simply to delay the inevitable. Entering into accords with the Iranians that they will never abide by is simply the height of foolishness.
It is as if Neville Chamberlain had stepped off the plane, waving the Munich Agreement, and said: "Here is the accord I have negotiated with Herr Hitler, but I don't expect it to bring peace in our time. On the contrary, Hitler is not to be trusted one bit and certainly will attempt to violate the accord as soon as he is able." Would anyone in his right mind have concluded anything other than that Chamberlain's words implied war between Germany and England in the not too distant future? And would anyone have concluded that the agreement with such an untrustworthy character was anything to be celebrated?
The fact that Hillary Clinton, in a speech that presumably was meant to display her foreign policy credentials, should both declare her support for an agreement with the Iranians and also imply that the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on because the Iranians are completely untrustworthy and doubtlessly will try to violate the agreement at the first possible opportunity, is simply an incredible display of foreign policy ineptitude from the woman who aspires to be the leader of the free world. In essence, Hillary's speech argues that we should support President Obama's negotiation of an agreement with a party that is completely untrustworthy. With supporters like this, Obama doesn't need any enemies.
