Congratulations to All: The right side of history has won.
The Iran deal — at this moment anyway — seems to be going through.
If there are no more glitches and it happens, we will all need to read it.
But the fact that the negotiations have taken so long; have been so hard, have often had just a 50/50 chance of success, and have often teetered toward collapse–shows how stringently careful has been the Free World Alliance.
And how the West’s Free World Alliance is not just going for or accepting “any deal.” With these interminable and teetering talks? The fact is that it has been just the opposite.
And let’s remember All this is not only the United States President Barack Obama and United States Secretary of State John Kerry.
This is also Britain and Prime Minister David Cameron, France and President Francois Hollande, Germany and Chancellor Angela Merkel– everyone — who are, with the US, being such stubborn sticklers and who must unanimously agree the deal is totally airtight and loophole-free.
The combined experience and expertise of the entire Free World.
And precisely this stubbornness and carefulness has generated the talks’ length–and large and ever-present chance of failure and collapse.
Let us also consider that President Obama recognizes that this deal would be a huge and crucial part of his all-time future legacy. As he told Jeffrey Goldberg in the May Atlantic Monthly:
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this.”
And so the last thing he would want would be for there to be a “bad deal” — that would end up with Iran having bomb. The last thing. The the first thing he would insist on is that this be absolutely impossible.
If we put ourselves in his shoes we would see how much this would be to him personally an absolutely red line that it could never happen.
Meanwhile some reminders–and questions–for skeptics:
This is not only how much Obama himself does not want a bomb to be his legacy.
Again, it is also the intelligences and militarys of Britain and Cameron, France and Hollande, Germany and Merkel, NATO:
And all of their and our combined military and intelligence expertise and experience in arms negotiation throughout the long decades of Cold War.
And it would have to be unanimous: That there must be a unanimous verdict that it will be be absolutely historically validated and vindicated.
I’ve been asked why it is I “trust Iran more than Israel.”
It’s not that I trust Iran.
The question is rather: Why do I trust the US, France, Germany, Hollande, Merkel, Cameron, Obama, the CIA, NATO, and all their combined technical military and intelligence resources, and on and on, more than I trust … well… “the King of the Settlers”?
Whose July 8th tweet shows his level of irresponsibility and immaturity and sheer hysterics:
“Iran’s increasing aggression is more dangerous than that of ISIS, and the true goal of this aggression in the end is to take over the world.”
Let us make sure we have this down right. To–. Take over–. The world–.
What instability. What teetering into–well, what to call it but?– …lunacy?
Why do I trust the consolidated wisdom and intelligence and intelligence services and militarys of the entire Western democratic alliance more?
Let me… let us all… count the ways.
Meanwhile: In Israel is there even any active debate about whether, just by chance, maybe the entire Free Western World might be right?
I have been told that Iran has threatened to bomb Israel.
They haven’t threatened. In fact, they have pronounced a Fatwa against nuclear weapons period. Whether one believes this or not, as if they would then say they want a bomb, and, as soon as they get it, they’ll bomb Israel. Preposterous.
I have been told that Iran has threatened to murder Israeli Jews.
Ahmadinejad had called for a one-state solution and peaceful political change such as what the Soviet Union went through. And even he’s long gone. And like it or not — and I don’t at all — it is still completely peaceful.
Iran also says it will agree to any deal that Israel and the Palestinians conclude.
And actually if Israel bombed Iran, then Teheran would get destroyed by Israel’s nukes including submarine nukes.
But since the whole country wouldn’t be destroyed, you can assume it would go after a nuke itself with either new or renewed determination.
Or even buy or steal one illicitly.
And if it were attacked first–but only if it were attacked first– Israel would become the first target of retaliation.
And yet again: In Israel there isn’t even any debate. About any of this.
Not even any debate about the remotest possibility that the US, Obama, France, Hollande, Britain, Cameron, all their intelligence and military resources, CIA, NATO, and on and on, might be right. Not even a debate.
And if Iran wants a bomb, nobody can provide a good reason why it wouldn’t ultimately get it — except for Obama’s and the West’s talks.
This is why George W. Bush did nothing; because he wouldn’t negotiate, there was no other way to stop it, and so — what he did was nothing.
Only talks can do anything.
Without talks, then the path to the bomb — if they want one — is 100% straightaway to getting one, later or sooner.
So, skeptics: Please give the rest of us an alternative to the talks.
In fact there is only George W. Bush’s alternative — which is no talks.
George W. Bush’s alternative was: No impediment to an Iranian bomb.
And so actually it is the opponents of the talks who are supporting — in effect, although obviously not in intent — a prospective Iranian bomb.
It is the talks’ opponents, not supporters, who must answer the question about how they would be the ones to prevent Iran from having the bomb.
If they oppose the talks, then what is their alternative?
Other than do what George W. Bush could do.
And Bush could do: