Most people who speak against the nuclear deal with Iran invoke
history to tell of parallels they see between it and what's happening in the
world today. And they conclude that the bad developments of the past are about
to be repeated because President Obama is accommodating Iran instead of
working to destroy it.
But the fact is that for nearly four decades, there have
been regional wars in which America
or Iran
or both have participated. The people opposed to the nuclear deal point to them
and say that the two countries have been at war with each other ever since. Be
that as it may, the war is now over; a finality that was brought about by the
signing of the nuclear deal between the two countries.
This being the case, it defies logic to invoke the prewar
history of past events and conclude that the peace treaty of today will lead to
war. The parallel that these people make is an absurdity … an intolerable one
at that. Call it an armistice or call it a peace treaty, the time has come for
those who invoke history to accept that reality and seek ways to kiss and make
up with Iran .
But this is not what the Jewish mob of warmongers is willing
to do as can be seen from reading the article that came under the title: “Scuttle
Obama's Iran
deal, or surrender” and the subtitle: “The future of U.S. Sovereignty rests
with Congress now.” It was written by Clifford D. May of the comical troupe
calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and published on July 21,
2015 in the Washington Times.
To make his case, Clifford May begins by lamenting that as a
result of the peace “Iran 's
rulers will receive tens of billions of dollars.” He further explains that this
money “will both empower and enrich a regime that is responsible for more than
1,000 American military deaths.” Even though he is among those who invoke
history, he does not juxtapose that figure with the millions of military deaths
that the forces of the Axis inflicted on America , yet the country kissed and
made up with its previous adversaries and nobody lamented then.
What May does next is ask the rhetorical question: “Can you
tell me when such policies have led to good outcomes?” upon which he tells the
Congress of the United States
to reject the deal with Iran .
But because such action will have repercussions worldwide given that the
Security Council of the UN has adopted it and made it binding on all member
states – including the United
States , Clifford May devotes the rest of the
article to show that the repercussions will not be serious.
He focuses on the lifting of American sanctions now in
effect on Iran .
He mentions in this regard that the Iranian Foreign Minister warned America “will
have committed a blatant violation of international law” if the agreement were
revoked by the next President as some had suggested may happen. However, May
writes that a former Republican legal adviser to the White House pointed out
that the UN resolution does not require the lifting of American sanctions as a
matter of international law.
Thus, Clifford May concludes that “if Congress disapproves
this deal and refrains from lifting sanctions, the US will not be an outlaw
nation, but will [only] be violating the spirit of the UN resolution and
contravening the political commitment made in the agreement.” As to the
argument that it would be futile to maintain American sanctions while those
imposed by Europe and others will be lifted,
May responds: The members of Congress who endorse this deal will own it and
will share responsibility for what it brings.
Fearing hat this may not be enough to convince the Congress
it must reject peace with Iran
and set the country on a path that will see the “war” continue for an
indefinite period, May plays the sovereignty card. He says “it would be a grave
mistake to set a precedent that the UN Security Council constitute a global
government with the power to make decisions for the American people.”
To reinforce his argument, he quotes Walter Russell Mead who
never accepted Obama's presidency as being an equal branch of the American
government. Indeed what Mead had said was that the precedent Obama is setting
by making foreign policy as stipulated in the Constitution changes the
Constitution. Go figure.