July 14, 2015—The Iran deal is made, so now comes the final, flailing efforts of the neoconservatives and their lackeys to kill it.
What’s missing from
the neocon talking points are facts. Facts like 66 percent of Iran’s centrifuges being removed or 97 percent of its low-enriched uranium being destroyed. Facts like the shutdown of the Arak reactor or the end of all uranium enrichment at the Fordow facility. Facts like constant video surveillance of uranium mines and permanent inspections under the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
What the neocons have to say now is nothing new, just louder. The debate has been going on for years. Before getting to the neocon lines highlighting today’s mainstream coverage, watch this 2010 clip of Scott Horton debunking the warmongers:
The earliest, loudest, most frantic neocon voices leading the opposition to the Iran deal are as follows:
Former Senator Joe Lieberman — “There is much more risk for America and reward for Iran than should be in this agreement.”
As opposed to what? Lieberman pretends to favor some other alternative, but is never able to articulate it. But for argument’s sake, what are the risks in this agreement? That Iran President Hassan Rouhani will prove to Iran’s hawks that diplomacy with the US is doable and preferable to international sanctions? As for Iran’s “reward,” the only gains here are an end to the some of the harshest sanctions in the world. Intervention in the first place is to blame for its predicted, inevitable failure.
Senator Tom Cotton — “This proposed deal is a terrible, dangerous mistake that’s going to pave a path for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”
Coming from a side of the debate that for over 20 years has been falsely claiming Iran had a nuclear weapons program and would have one very soon if the US didn’t attack, this talking point is ludicrous. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would have to wait a decade before dumping its entire low-enriched uranium program just to break out and build one very expensive nuclear weapon. What does Cotton believe would not pave a path for Iran to get a nuclear weapon? Right.
Bill Kristol — “If Congress cannot override the president, the recovery will have to begin a year and a half from now, but from a deeper hole, a worse position for America, the Middle East, and the world.”
Mark your calendars. Kristol, heir of the neocon crown, who helped build the case for an omnipotent presidency for a permanent wartime now wants to strengthen Congress all of a sudden. Until a Republican president (who isn’t Rand Paul) arrives anyway. Kristol is also upset about the end of the arms embargo for some reason. Keeping Iran from combatting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is a strange negotiating position to be in.
Could their loss over the Iran deal be the last hurrah for neocons on American foreign policy? Perhaps a rise for more non-intervention voices? Take a break from the neocon screeches, and enjoy the more mature responses to today’s historical news:
From a CNN op-ed by John Glaser and Justin Logan of the CATO Institute:
“But the question in the context of nuclear diplomacy was never a choice between a neutered, Israel-recognizing liberal Iran or an empowered nuclear theocracy. It was between a nasty but weak regional power with little power-projection capability, closer or further away from a nuclear weapons capability. And on these terms, the agreement must be viewed as a clear success.”
From the Ron Paul Institute, Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams host the Liberty Report:
What are your thoughts on the Iran deal? Comment below!
This article is hosted, designed, and promoted with the assistance of readers like you. Give a gift to keep VoicesofLiberty moving the message of liberty forward.