Follow by Email

Monday, August 3, 2015

John Bolton, "The Iran Deal’s Dangerous Precedent": Where Is the Agreement's Sanity Clause?

Yesterday, in a slimy editorial entitled "Republican Hypocrisy on Iran," which did not mention the secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran that govern inspection of suspect Iranian military sites, we were told by The New York Times that Obama's agreement with Khamenei had the support of "scores of leading American diplomats."

Well, today former United States ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, in a guest Times op-ed entitled "The Iran Deal’s Dangerous Precedent," demolishes that contention. Addressing the deal's so-called snapback provisions, Bolton writes:

"In two provisions (Paragraphs 26 and 37), Iran rejects the legitimacy of sanctions coming back into force. These passages expressly provide, in near identical words, that “Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA” — Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — 'in whole or in part.'

Thus the inexorable pattern will not be: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran resumes compliance. Quite the reverse. The far more likely future is: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran tells us, using a diplomatic term of art, to take our deal and stuff it.

Abrogating the deal, of course, would come only after Iran had reaped the economic benefits of having its assets unfrozen and the sanctions ended. The Europeans (among others) will have been suckered back into economic relationships that will cause as much pain to them as to Iran if they are abandoned."

Does anyone really believe that the Europeans, Russians and Chinese will ever agree to a snapback of sanctions? No. And this is why this absurd agreement should have included a "sanity clause." A sanity clause? Yes, a sanity clause. As explained in The Marx Brothers' epic "A Night at the Opera":

Fiorello: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here? This thing here.
Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause. That's in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, "If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified."
Fiorello: Well, I don't know...
Driftwood: It's all right, that's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a 'sanity clause.'
Fiorello: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Clause!

The Iranians, who hang gay men and stone to death women accused of adultery, are clearly not in their right mind, and if there was a sanity clause, this entire agreement would be automatically nullified.

If only Obama's deal, which threatens the existence of Israel and could lead to Iranian nuclear-tipped ICBMs falling on Washington and New York, was so comical . . .


  1. Meanwhile, Africa finds LGBT rights are more important to #44 than aid to fight Boko Haram, or clean water:

    "...In 2011, Obama issued a memorandum that directed all U.S. embassies worldwide to promote LGBT rights, which he said were "central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights."
    This is the same administration that has spent substantial political capital on a deal with Iran that includes scant reforms in that dictatorial, terrorist-supporting nation, and opened relations with Cuba despite requiring few, if any, political reforms from the Castro dictatorship.

    African leaders have long opposed Obama's 21st-century imperialism,
    "It is ironic that a president who has passionately apologized for America's 19th and 20th century imperialism has adopted a twenty-first century imperialism toward Africa by forcing nations to change their beliefs on marriage, abortion and contraception in exchange for basic humanitarian aid," said Obike, who was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for the Minnesota for Marriage Campaign.

    [irony or hypocrisy? or cultural imperialism at work?
    some legacy! must be some good weeds in that WH garden]


  2. As a famous rav (now deceased) predicted: first, the arabs will "eat themselves" which has come true. They are slaughtering each other, to the extent that they have no time to butcher us. Second, America will suffer far worse than Israel as a result of its policies and treatment of Israel. Last, Israel is under protection in this final epoch before redemption. If you can believe that the lunacy which prevails can be actually happening, you should have no problem believing in the redemption at hand.

  3. Does the NY Times editor believe what he says in "Republican Hypocrisy on Iran" or just expect his readers to? He calls Republicans hypocrites for their opposition to a move by Democrats because Republicans made similar moves in the past? And their opposition to this one particular deal exposes a broad failure to appreciate the historically proven value of compromise with the enemy. Republicans are also guilty of being "ahistorical." Never mind that they're basing their opposition on Iran's history as a dealbreaker, and Obama's less-than-stellar history in foreign affairs. Whatever you think of Reagan's having gone around Congress to sell arms to Iran, it's curiously gracious of a NY Times editor to use something for which the Left blasted Reagan as justification for Obama's eagerness to drive his will through, or around, Congress. Did the editor support Reagan back then, or is this a convenient flip-flop to help him defend his argument for bipartisan consensus in the name of our national security? He declined to name those "five major powers with "responsible opinion (in favor of the Iran deal), perhaps because readers he otherwise takes for fools may be smart enough to question what China & Russia have to say on the matter, given the huge financial interest they have in the deal's passage. As arms salesmen. To our enemy. But let's not bother with the tiny details.

  4. A brief summary of the editorial might read: Republicans should stop thinking for themselves, agree with Democrats, and look the other way whenever Democrats want to do something similar to what Republicans did in the past. That way we could all get along, present a unified front to Iran, and they'd hate us less. Or did I miss something?