Senior US senator slams Iran nuclear deal as ‘shopping spree

Tom Cotton, R-Ark., specifically mentioned Iran’s practice of supplying explosively formed penetrators – a type of roadside bomb – to groups fighting U.S. troops. We can call it “Trump Talk”, defined as a drumbeat of outrageous political speech that is historically inaccurate, intellectually dishonest and even deceptive, morally and spiritually offensive, and willfully tone deaf.

Kerry also clarified that national security advisor Susan Rice had not seen them either. This historic diplomatic achievement will benefit the American people and the Iranian people alike by taking war off the table and creating the possibility for sustained peace and renewed relations. “You don’t produce highly enriched uranium for peaceful purposes”.

Already, US and Iranian diplomats appear to disagree on the status of the IAEA roadmap, and its relationship to the JCPOA.

Opponents of the agreement (at least the serious ones) generally fall into two camps.

The best reason for rejecting the agreement is to rebuke Obama’s long record of aggressive disdain for Congress – recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, rewriting and circumventing statutes, etc. Obama’s intellectual pedigree runs to that of Woodrow Wilson, the first presidential disparager of the separation of powers. But it has been very hard for them to demonstrate what that deal would be. What it demonstrates is a dual track policy that the United States has taken in regards to Iran; on the one hand attempting to co-opt Iran, an attempt to bring it within its orbit economically by allowing it to integrate into Western finance capital and into Western neoliberal capitalism generally, vis-à-vis the corporations, the consumer goods, the oil, the energy and all of these things. But showing how such action would accomplish a non-nuclear Iran is also impossible to demonstrate and would more likely lead to the opposite result – Iran going for the bomb as quickly as possible. There would be sufficient support — “enough for this to be sustained”, he said — if Congress rejects the agreement and Obama vetoes the resolution of disapproval. Perhaps.

Per the agreement, the infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program is left mostly in tact, the Associated Press has reported. Wouldn’t it be better to have 15 years of intrusive inspections, blueprints, and intelligence? If Iran objects, a drawn-out, bureaucratic process of 24 or more days would take effect.

By some estimates, the agreement would immediately give Iran upwards of $100 billion of withheld oil sales, money that could be used to fund Iran’s continued terrorism in other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, a likelihood even President Obama acknowledged.

Fabius said he carried an invitation from French President Francois Hollande for Rouhani to visit France in November and that a French economic delegation is expected to arrive in Iran by the end of summer.

There are legitimate concerns that must be addressed, including the strong opposition to the agreement by our friends and allies in Israel.

Critics who think more severe sanctions are achievable and would break Iran’s determination must answer this: When have sanctions caused a large nation to surrender what it considers a vital national security interest? The global community will be relying on the worldwide Atomic Energy Agency for inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthi rebels in regional conflicts against U.S. partners such as Israel and Yemen. All Iran’s bad behavior couldn’t be loaded into this deal.

Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost.

The IAEA could conceivably have made the signing of the roadmap contingent on Iran’s willingness to distribute the entirety of the agreement.

Under a US law passed in May, Congress has until September 17 to weigh in on the agreement. Where am I wrong on that question?

Like the Iran deal, there was no way to prevent cheating. And we know what the main course at that feast will be – terrorism.

The stakes are high.

The agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which we’re rely relying on, no one in the U.S. government has a copy of.

Another problem with this agreement is that it will encourage nuclear proliferation across the region.