By Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / 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.
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 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..and remain…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 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 wetting 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 re-impose 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 now that nuclear rogue nation to 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 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 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 these two old liberal hens of a feather 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 rogue nations becoming a reality.
That strategy is appeasement.
Just as sanctions don’t 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 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 dust by the appeasees. Each group of appeasers failed to learn from the 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 overtaking of the culture of the appeasers because those who offer such appeasements seem to believe the road to lasting peace should 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 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 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 Craig Andresen / thenationalpatriot.com and Diane Sori / thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com
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