Follow by Email

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Dennis Ross and David Petraeus, "How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran": How About Dentures?



In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran," Dennis Ross and David Petraeus explain why they remain undecided concerning approval  of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Ross and Petraeus conclude:

"Deterrence would be more effective — and full implementation of the agreement more likely — if the Iranians understand that there will be a price for every transgression, no matter how small, and that we will raise the cost to them of de-stabilizing behavior in the region. The president’s letter to [Congressman Jerrold] Nadler was useful but fell short of addressing our concerns. It is still possible for the administration to do so."

Threaten Iran with a price for every transgression, no matter how small? Heck, Iran has been callously violating the interim Joint Plan of Action, and now, suddenly, Obama is going to respond to minor breaches of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?

Get real, Dennis and David! I would be satisfied if the deal came with dentures.

4 comments:

  1. And today,we have protesters outside of Senator Schumer's office,wanting an endorsement of the deal.
    Folks that are naive beyond belief,in thinking that we're dealing with reasonable,decent people of integrity that will adhere to the agreement.Folks that think that it will eliminate a war...If they were only capable of looking out a dozen years or so,at the nuclear mess heading for the Middle East and our shores as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Get used to no teeth. The deal now comes with a filibuster plan to avoid a vote that #44 promises to veto:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-deal-filibuster-121776.html

    "...When [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid talks to Senate Democrats, he’s being very explicit.

    “He’s not: ‘This is a vote of conscience,’” a person close to Reid explained. “He’s, ‘Vote no against a resolution of disapproval.’” ..."

    [translation: you must display loyalty to #44 regardless of what you actually think. I knew #44 wants to avoid a veto, but had not thought he would stoop to a filibuster to avoid a vote]

    k

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/08/31/why_middle_eastern_conflicts_will_escalate_111397.html

    George Friedman, Stratfor, best describes what is missing from the Iran 'debate':
    "...For many Arabs, choosing between Turkish or Persian rule is like choosing between death by drowning or by immolation. ..."

    In more interesting 'tea-leaf reading' news:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/29/dems-say-party-chair-blocked-iran-resolution-at-dnc-meeting/

    "...Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz prevented consideration of a resolution at the party’s summer meeting here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats. ..."

    The Rainbow Coalition only wants "good, e.g. compliant, Jews"? When Jesse Jackson Sr coined the Rainbow Coalition, he also called NYC "Hymie-town"


    The Obama Party is the Rainbow Coalition. Now moving fundraisers from Scarsdale, NY to Dearborn, MI?

    k

    ReplyDelete
  4. This was just posted at realclearworld.com:
    (No chance Senator Gillenbrand will be reading this out loud during her Senate filibuster moment.)

    http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/how-the-iran-deal-could-complicate-u-s-efforts-to-prevent-a-nuclear-breakout/

    "Contrary to what we are hearing from the White House, the nuclear deal with Iran could make preventive military action to stop an Iranian bomb an even more problematic proposition than it was before. "

    Michael Eisenstadt, in detail, with links, and a photo of John & Wendy toasting their success.

    Everyone else? Prepare for no teeth, ever. or MOPs...

    k

    ReplyDelete