Here’s the point everyone’s missing on the Iran deal

There is so much controversy surrounding the recent Iran nuclear deal that one would think there is nothing left to say about it.

The arguments appear complex, with both sides, for and against it, seemingly sincere. In many cases each are persuasive to the point where it is easy to not know what to think about it.

However, I believe the way to think about this deal can be boiled down to the following simple explanation.

First, it is clearly a bad deal. Even President Obama does not argue it’s a good deal in and of itself. He only argues that it is the best deal possible as opposed to the alternatives. According to this definition, it is a good deal because it’s the only deal that could be made. But that is not the definition of a good deal.

Obama repeatedly asks the rhetorical question, ‘what is the alternative to this deal’, which he then proceeds to answer. ‘More sanctions? We’ve seen how that works. That hasn’t stopped the Iranians all these years, and only guarantees they will just race straight toward the bomb.’

That answer to the more sanctions alternative is likely correct, so people generally accept this alternative as unacceptable.

But here’s where the slight-of-hand comes in selling this deal. Like all really effective lies or slight-of-hand, it’s very subtle. Blink and you’ll miss it. Obama then goes on to ask, ‘War? We’ve been there before in Iraq and I don’t think anyone wants to go back.’ Did you see it? The slight-of-hand?

The subtle twist to the truth lies in the second alternative being false.

It is the word ‘war’. War is set up as the alternative to the deal. He then immediately follows up on this by invoking America’s disastrous experience in Iraq as justifying this premise.

But war is not the alternative. That’s simply not true. And Iraq is not an example of American military conflict with Iran. America went into Iraq in order to topple a regime. And that required a war with boots on the ground.

The alternative to a deal with Iran is to bomb their nuclear facilities. And this is far from a war, at least for America. An increase in terrorism? Maybe. But not a war.

While America’s current president is a pacifist and appeaser, it is self-evident that striking Iran would be the most likely way to foster a safer world.

Doing so would set Iran’s nuclear program back several years. If no good, enforceable deal resulted from doing so, then America could do it again if necessary.

In the meantime, the Iranian regime would be further weakened, at least financially, and their ability to conduct proxy wars and terrorism reduced. Furthermore, no nuclear arms race would ensue throughout the Middle East, and trust would be restored between America and her allies in the region.

In summary, an American strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities offers the only possible path to a good deal. Such a deal could occur immediately before the strike, after it, or after additional strikes. Most importantly, these strikes are not war, and it is difficult to see how they could lead to the kind of war that is being used to justify a bad deal.