Hardly anyone is pleased with the prospect of a nuclear arms agreement between the U.S. and Iran as negotiated by Barack Obama and John Kerry. Even the editorialists at the Washington Post have reservations, to wit:
IF IT is reached in the coming days, a nuclear deal with Iran will be, at best, an unsatisfying and risky compromise. Iran’s emergence as a threshold nuclear power, with the ability to produce a weapon quickly, will not be prevented; it will be postponed, by 10 to 15 years. In exchange, Tehran will reap hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief it can use to revive its economy and fund the wars it is waging around the Middle East.
It appears as if President Obama's only real focus is domestic politics. And 10 years may as well be an eternity in that realm. But that speculation about 10 to 15 years is probably too optimist by about 9 to 14 years.
The anti-war, anti-Republican left was screaming and hollering about the war in Iraq, and now they're trying to make it a gotcha question for Republican candidates.
Suppose the left had prevented Saddam Hussein's ejection. What would Saddam be doing now? Apparently, his nuclear program was on hold. But he was working behind the scenes and under the table to get sanctions lifted. And by now they surely would have been long gone along with the inspectors. So here he is in 2015 looking across the border at his old enemy, Iran, and watching his favorite news channel, CNN. And he knows how weak American has become and how strong Iran has become.
Is there any doubt that his regime would be working feverishly to keep up with or surpass the Iranians in a new nuclear arms race?
Comments