Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part I

Barack Obama: "I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement." You mean, as long as Congress does not think that they have any say in the matter, as you also said: "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal." Then again, part of your "fundamental change" has been to completely disregard the other two branches of government from the day you took office.

The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."

The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.

Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.

The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.

Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?

Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.