Iran Nuke Deal: Death To America

Never has a deal between two nations been greeted with such polar opposites as the Iran nuclear pact. In America, a truculent President Obama and a fawning media called the pact a historic milestone aimed at normalizing relations.  Across the world, chants of "Death to America" rang out in Iran.

Therein, lies the problem with the Iran nuclear deal, trumpeted by a president desperate to burnish his legacy. The painful lesson, which America should have learned by now, is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists.  No deal, no matter how ironclad, is destined to unravel once sanctions are removed.

Make no mistake about it, Iran is a terrorist nation.  The president's Central Intelligence Agency calls the country a "state sponsor of terrorism" in the world.  The nation is ruled by a mullah, an unelected supreme religious leader.  Iranians are subjected to strict religious laws that suppress women.

The country of 80 million mostly Muslims enjoy no freedom of the press. The CIA calls Iran a main source of sex trafficking and forced labor.  The nation is a primary transshipment route for heroin to Europe.  It supports some of the most brutal terror groups in the world, including Hezbollah.

Iran has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to abide by its promises to use nuclear facilities only for peaceful means. The independent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded as far back as 2003 that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Past efforts by the IAEA to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities were rebuffed by Iran.  Yet President Obama defends the new accord based on a provision for timely inspections.  The whole deal hinges on an Iranian assurance the country will abide by this guarantee.

In the run-up to the bargain, President Obama repeatedly promised a final agreement with Iran would include "anytime, anywhere, 24/7 access" to the country's nuclear facilities.  That provision is missing from the agreement.  It has been replaced by a watered-down inspection timetable.  

Notwithstanding the media's portrayal of the deal, no enforceable agreement actually exists today. There is only a broad outline of a compromise.  That's why there have been dueling fact-sheets from Iran and the U.S. about what commitments each side has made.

The last time a Democrat president signed a similar nuclear agreement it ended in disaster. President Bill Clinton inked an accord with North Korea in 1994, designed to derail that nation's nuclear ambitions. Inspections by the IAEA were a key component of the deal.  

Like the Iranian agreement, the media heralded the pact as ground-breaking because it would alter the relations between North Korea and the U.S., promoting lasting harmony and peace.  Some Republicans opposed the agreement, but their voices were drowned out by the appeasement crowd.

As most know, the agreement collapsed almost as soon as it began. Once sanctions against North Korea were lifted, inspections became contentious.  Enmity turned to open hostility after the CIA established evidence that North Korea was constructing a facility to develop nuclear weapons.

Today, by most estimates, North Korea has anywhere from 10 to 15 nuclear bombs.  The lesson is clear: you cannot negotiate in good faith with untrustworthy regimes.  The deal with Iran has no more chance of succeeding than the agreement with North Korea.

Despite Obama's assurances, the agreement will not improve relations with Iran.  The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as much two days ago.  He went on Iranian state television to announce his country would continue its support for Hezbollah, Syria and other terrorist regimes.

Obama and his media puppets slam critics of the nuclear deal for favoring force over diplomacy with Iran.  This is a canard the president uses to brush off honest concerns about his negotiated compromise. No politician on either side of the aisle has argued for armed conflict with Iran.

The U.S. should increase, not reduce, its sanctions against an Iranian government that refuses to halt its aggression around the world.  The president should demand the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program as a condition of a deal and include anytime, anywhere inspections to verify compliance.

If the Iranians won't agree to those terms, then the country will remain isolated with a crippled economy and simmering discontent from young people discouraged by declining prospects for their future. Eventually, the country will collapse under its own oppressive weight.

The president likes to chide critics that his deal with Iran is better than no agreement.  That argument hardly is an endorsement for the pact. Congress should soundly reject the Obama capitulation because it is unenforceable and does not halt Iran's efforts to build an nuclear arsenal.