Reprinted from Greanville Post
Trust -- who can you trust, and who you cannot -- has come up as a major issue in the aftermath of the signing of the "Iran Deal" on Iran's nuclear energy program, between Iran and the "Five + 1" negotiating group. As is well known, the Republicans in the United States and their vassals in Israel gathered around Prime Minister Netanyahu (or is it t'other way round), have been in full-throated roar against any agreement with Iran since long before the final negotiations concluded with the deal that is now on the table.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that the critics of the deal have never seemed to offer a viable alternative to it, unless the alternative, which many observers, although not all (like the U.S. Sec. Def.), would consider not viable, is the "military option." But the complete lack of any stated alternatives, other than "no deal is better than this one," doesn't stop the critics from criticizing. (They get louder, and nastier, by the day. One Repub. Congressman questioned Purple-heart awardee Sec. John Kerry's record of service to the United States.) It does not stop them from being determined to scuttle the deal by getting a veto-proof Congressional majority that would prevent President Obama from lifting the U.S.-imposed economic sanctions against Iran.
Below -- Ad financed by Adelson and other zionists to put pressure on Congress and other opinion- and policy-makers...
And so, we hear lots about Iranian "cheating" and "you can't trust the Iranians." It happens that a large set of top experts have said that the deal is about as air-tight as one could make it. For example:
"Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a former national security aide to Sen. John McCain, and a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense [not exactly screaming liberal] said: '[T]he proposed parameters and framework in the Proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has the potential to meet every test in creating a valid agreement over time...It can block both an Iranian nuclear threat and a nuclear arms race in the region, and it is a powerful beginning to creating a full agreement, and creating the prospect for broader stability in other areas.'"
And there are many other experts quoted in the article cited just above. So it would seem that, in dealing with Iran, at least, concerning the Reagan motto "trust and verify," the agreement goes very heavy on the verify side, so that trust really doesn't play into it too much -- on the Iranian side.
But there is a major trust issue in play here. That is: Why should the Iranians trust the U.S., and Israeli, politicians, interest groups, and money-men arrayed against the deal? After all, a leading Republican politician, former-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in discussing the possible risk to the nation of Israel, has compared the deal with preparing the way for another Holocaust. Funny, I don't recall that the 6,000,000 Jews murdered by the Nazis were holding in front of them, on the way to the Death Camps, 400 operational (and totally un-inspected) nuclear weapons, that for some unknown reason they chose not to use.
But maybe I missed something. And oh yes, in case you didn't know, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty while Israel is not. Should the Iranians really trust Huckabee and his people? Well, no.
Then there is Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the one who sent the "we won't support it" letter directly to the government of Iran during a critical stage of the negotiations. According to the letter "Cotton promised Iran that the United States would not live up to its end of the bargain." Cotton appears to be in the pocket of the U.S. military-industrial complex, which stands to lose a lot of juice (as well as billions in profits) should the deal be ratified in the end. Should Iran trust him?
Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of refugees from Batista's (not Castro's) Cuba, a candidate for the Republican nomination for President who, unlike Huckabee, actually stands a chance of getting it. Rubio (below) has actually said that if he is elected President, one of his first acts would be to scrap the deal.
Once one takes a careful look at what the opponents of the deal are saying, it becomes quickly apparent that it is not the details that they are against, for if that were it, they would be offering all kinds of alternatives, which they are not. So if it's not the deal itself, what are they against? (I dealt with this issue at length in an earlier column on the subject.)
Well, I am revealing nothing very mysterious in saying that of course they are against it because a) it will have President Obama's name on it, and b) with the onset of a modicum of peace in the Middle East and the economic (not the military) resurgence of Iran as a player on the world stage, the U.S./Israeli military-industrial complexes would take a big hit. They have a huge influence in the Congress, which is where the Duopoly issue comes in on this one.