The
President's liberal terms for ending sanctions on Iran in exchange
for Iranian assurances that they will delay plutonium or highly
enriched uranium production for 10 or 15 years makes me wonder about the logic
that suggested that it has any merit to it.
Iran
gets billions and billions of dollars of immediate economic relief.
Civilian rights are important everywhere and civil prosperity is a
large element of civilian rights. So I am sympathetic with that; the
people should not pay the penalty for government corruption,
malfeasance or insider kickbacks to the rich, yet of course they
generally do. The Iranian government with all of the oil money will
do what governments everywhere like to do; pend a lot of
military equipment and foreign intrigue-even going so far as to fund
terror operation, covert and overt.
Iran
probably bought enough nuclear material from Kazakhstan between
1992-2000 to build a few bombs some speculate. There was a lot of
dumped, Soviet nuclear materials in Kazakhstan after the cold war.
Iranian agents are known to have visited such places when a few
million might buy a few pounds of weapons grade fissile materials.
Even if Iran agrees not to make their own highly enriched uranium for
several years they can work on perfecting missiles and buying
accurate guidance systems. maybe they can employ former Soviet
weapons designers to instruct them on the finer points of developing
MIRV and MARV systems. Iran isn't likely to use a nuclear weapon on
Israel anytime soon anyway knowing that Israelis might vaporize all
of their major cities as a courtesy reply. Perhaps President Obama
was worried about Iranian nukes for other reasons.
Iran
might allow some nuclear weapon to distro out to covert operatives
gluing it to a ship hull or hiding it in a drone or plastic swimming
fish maybe, if it wanted to nuke D.C. or Boston. If they already have
a Soviet surplus nuke in stock the agreement won't affect that. That
treaty cannot end the danger of the unknown existing outside the
realm of Iranian inspectors who will assure D.C. and the I.A.E.A.
they have no contraband material.
Iran
will be given safety for a decade for developing missiles and perhaps
cruise missile and drones (the C.I.A. delivered one of ours to
Tehran) with lots of cash to afford it. Turkey and Iran will attack
ISIS in one way or another, yet our Kurdish allies seem threatened by
Turkey and Iran neither is especially friendly toward them.. Awash in
cash and with substantive dangers from Sunni aggression Iranians that
finance terrorism against Israel via Sunni terrorists in the Hamas
territories probably look to the agreement as a good thing-something
that will allow national security to finance terrorism better to
proceed while they lose little or no nuclear development time.. A
decade a nothing in politics form some points of view.
If
one asks; will U.S. national security be better off a decade from now
in regard to a potential Iranian nuclear missile attack. The answer
would be no except for any secret anti-missile technology the U.S.A.
may manufacture. Iran with a ready-to-wear nuclear missile assortment
on which next gen warheads can be fit when the engines of plutonium
production finally get rolling with President Barrack Obamas'
blessing in a decade or more is the real threat happily accepted by
too many in D.C. it seems.
If
the Senators that sign off on the treaty are still around in a
decade, that would be a surprise. A next generation of Senators
may better discover remedies-including peaceful remedies, to the
faulty Obama containment logic. A good ecological economic economy
innovated with minimal entropy and exported to benefit all of the
people is an alternative approach that isn't used in D.C., and that
has no leadership in politics. The same old worst case diplomatic
criteria are instead used, and that leads to temporal conflicts and
brinksmanship. Some day political and economic wisdom may appear as
dual nature attributes that aren't uncommon in politics. Even so the
Obama administration's willingness to allow Christians to be purged
from the Middle east and endangered in Africa seems like a supporting
element to a strategic leftist change to base American foreign and
domestic policy on godless atheist principles rather than those of
God and the Lord Jesus Christ; plainly that is not good.
No comments:
Post a Comment