Press "Enter" to skip to content

Peaceful Iran Nuclear Agreement Beats Alternatives; Time for Thune, Rounds, Noem to Move On

Congress this week failed to derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in which Iran has agreed to the imposition of a variety of restrictions on and oversight of its military, industrial, and scientific activities by the United States, Russia, China, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, in return for the lifting of international sanctions.

Two of South Dakota’s leading reporters tiptoe into the treacherous waters of this international agreement and the failed Congressional effort to nuke it. Kevin Woster recites the press releases of our mullah-writing Senators and parroting Representative. John Thune, Mike Rounds, and Kristi Noem aren’t quite as illogical as Ted Cruz, who says, “[I]f this deal goes through we know to an absolute certainty that people will die.” But they don’t mention the absolute certainty that people will die from their preferred policy of another shooting war in the Middle East.

Woster then turns to man of war and peace Colin Powell, who said last weekend in his 33rd appearance on Meet the Press that the Obama Administration and our allies have negotiated a pretty good deal:

One of the great concerns that the opposition has, that we’re leaving open a lane for the Iranians to go back to creating a nuclear weapon in ten or 15 years. They’re forgetting the reality that they have been on a superhighway for the last ten years to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program, with no speed limit.

And in the last ten years, they have gone from 136 centrifuges up to something like 19,000 centrifuges. This agreement will bring them down to 5,000 centrifuges. All of these will be under IAEA supervision. And I think this is a good outcome. The other thing I’ve noticed is that they had a stockpile of something in the neighborhood of 12,000 kilograms of uranium. This deal will bring it down to 300 kilograms.

And it’s a remarkable reduction. And I’m amazed that they would do this. But they have done it. And with respect to the plutonium effort, the plutonium reactor at Iraq, which is now starting to operate, it’s going to be shut down, except for minor parts of it, and concrete will be poured into the reactor core vessel.

And so these are remarkable changes. And so we have stopped this highway race that they were going down. And I think that’s very important. Now, will they comply with it? Will they actually do all of this? Well, they get nothing until they show compliance. And that’s the important part of their arrangement [Colin Powell, transcript, Meet the Press, 2015.09.06].

Given that assessment from an esteemed general and diplomat who now stands outside the political fray against the political complaints of two Senators who have never wielded a soldier’s rifle or a diplomat’s pen, Woster coyly concludes, “So, good deal? Bad deal? Political deal? Yeah, I think so.”

Reporter Bob Mercer seems willing to more directly challenge our delegation’s partisan balk and defend the diplomatic efforts of our President and our allies. As if in response to Speaker John Boehner’s assertion that “Never in our history has something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support,” Mercer characterizes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as a peace treaty in an undeclared war waged with no Congressional oversight:

Congress wasn’t asked by President George W. Bush or by President Barack Obama to declare war.

Instead the Republican president covertly initiated and the Democratic president who came next covertly carried forward a national strategy of cyber-attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Spies planted a virus in Iran’s computers that controlled centrifuges making nuclear material.

The virus known as Stuxnet caused equipment to go haywire [Bob Mercer, “What Other Choice Than the Iran Deal?Black Hills Pioneer, 2015.09.12].

Mercer then says with none of Woster’s equivocation that this international agreement with Iran beats the alternatives:

We have tried the military solution in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the federal debt to prove our ambition exceeded our ability to pay in money and exceeded our tolerance in lives lost and ruined.

We have tried the cyber-espionage route in Iraq. We have tried diplomacy and money in Pakistan.

Now President Obama wants to try peace, of sorts, with Iran. So do Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and other European Union nations.

To kill the treaty begs the question: What instead shall we do?

There is no sound sadder than the bugle of Taps at a veteran’s funeral. Except when that bugle is blown in vain [Mercer, 2015.09.12].

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already pivoting from his apocalyptic pronouncements on the international nuclear agreement with Iran; he recognizes that he played his best hand and lost and should now get back to working with his allies on other issues. Senator Thune, Senator Rounds, and Rep. Kristi Noem should also show such practical wisdom. The President they hate has once again outmaneuvered them. With no lack of real work to do (the Highway Bill, cybersecurityPerkins Loans, the federal budget…), our Congressional delegation needs to accept their loss, accept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as the best policy on the table, and move on to the next issue.

17 Comments

  1. owen reitzel 2015-09-13 11:23

    you’re right but these are the same people still trying to appeal the ACA. Don’t think they’ll change now.

  2. bearcreekbat 2015-09-13 12:09

    Perhaps this will be another excuse to shut down the government?

  3. leslie 2015-09-13 13:24

    yup, two strange yet welcome victory editorials/reported stories?. Mercer says “barely” and Woster says “good/bad/political?” waffel, waffel, waffel. hit the trio harder. otherwise they are both, journalists shilling for our local “little boehners”.

  4. mike from iowa 2015-09-13 14:18

    Rafael Cruz thinks shutting down the gubmint over PP funding will boost his stature in iowa. Wingnuts aren’t concerned about collateral damage when trying to score political points. Then wingnuts will blame the black guy in the WH for their careless actions.

  5. Liberty Dick 2015-09-13 14:36

    Ahhh left wing fear mongering… Pass the deal or else war!!!

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-09-13 14:44

    Left-wing fear-mongering? Excuse me, Dick—Ted Cruz is the one who just told us the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action guarantees people will die. He offers no evidence, just shouts for the primary voters.

    I’m not saying that if we hadn’t forged the JCPOA we’d have gone to war. I’m saying (with evidence—click the links!) that the preferred policy of those who pushed hard to undermine the JCPOA (Tom Cotton and the folks like Thune and Rounds who signed his letter to the mullahs in March) is military action. And I will guarantee you that war and death will ensue much more quickly from the U.S. dropping ordnance on Iran than from the diplomatic solution we have forged with our allies and Tehran.

    The right-wing mongs fear; I offer rational descriptions of the policy forged by our President and the dangerous alternative offered by Thune et al.

  7. Rorschach 2015-09-13 15:31

    Once again, Republicans don’t offer any solutions. They just offer no’s. They are not for anything – just against something. They are the modern know nothing party.

    All of these GOP presidential candidates, if they stay in the race long enough, will have to start ‘splaining how they would address Iran’s quest for nukes. Perhaps they can look at what happened when North Korea got nukes while George Bush Jr. was President. Oh, nothing happened? Using nukes would mean certain annihilation. The Ayatollahs aren’t isn’t any stupider than the chubby dwarf running North Korea. And by the way, why weren’t these GOP presidential candidates bitching at Bush Jr. when he allowed North Korea to get nukes? Why the fear mongering now and not then?

  8. jerry 2015-09-13 17:30

    Under President Cheney’s watch, Iran put in about 5,000 centrifuges more than what they already had. Republicans only support war so they can get more money in their pockets from the blood of the innocents that flows along with that of American service personnel.

  9. owen reitzel 2015-09-13 18:01

    Liberty Richard-excuse me “Dick”-the only fear mongering going on is by the Republicans. While blasting the agreement Thune and his fellow hawks don’t offer a solution. They don’t say war but they sure imply it.
    I think you have to look at who are the winners if a war happens? Follow the money.

  10. Roger Elgersma 2015-09-13 20:47

    Anyone including Thune who said that the sanctions were working are simply liars.

  11. Porter Lansing 2015-09-14 05:52

    Thune, Rounds, Noem and their TeaParty lose to the smartest in the room … again? They must be tired of losing over and over.

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-09-14 10:53

    Retired General Anthony Zinni offers this view of those letters:

    “I’m convinced that 90% of the guys who signed the letter one way or the other don’t have any clue about whether it’s a good or bad deal,” says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine officer who says he refused requests from both sides to sign their letters. “They sign it because somebody’s asked them to sign it.”

    …Their views, Zinni argues, are driven largely by their politics. “It’s basically a Democrat-Republican issue,” he says. Like the lawmakers they are trying to influence, the signers who oppose the deal tend to be conservative. Those supporting it lean liberal (at least for retired military officers). It’s no surprise the generals against the deal outnumber those who support it. Surveys show that conservative military officers handily outnumber their liberal comrades [Mark Thompson, “Retired Generals Wage Letter War over Iran Nuclear-Deal Vote, Time, 2015.08.27].

    So which generals should we believe?

  13. leslie 2015-09-14 16:02

    lib dick- funyHahahaha-now that SD fear monger in chief, snr. sen thune, has lost the “NUCLEAR IRAN” and the “ACA” fear mongering (same w/ BENGHAZI, EMAIL, and “HILLARY the LIAR” scams of the GOP, perhaps he can shift focus to something valuable.

    Climate change.

    1992’s, 2002’s earth summits and RIO+20’s UN gatherings (2012) have established 17 “Must Do” SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS identifying 16 TIPPING POINTS we are now reaching. huffpost “Arctic Tipping Points (9.14.15)

    the priority is to reach ZERO carbon emissions by 2050. scary huh dick?

    Mercer and Woster both contribute to confusing u by shilling for our lil trio. Woster at least calls them out but “barely” compliment’s always reliable yet manipulated Collin Powell, as Mercer smooches with the trio just enough to avoid burning “bridges”.

  14. leslie 2015-09-14 16:29

    Powell, career veteran, former chair joint chiefs, was the most popular and trusted member of bush’s administration and gave a nat’l 80 minute public presentation assuring accuracy of intel, 2.5.03. 3.20.03 bush went to “shock and awe” war. in 2004 Powell publicly asserted “the intel was misleading, sometimes deliberately'”. He was fired immediately upon bush’s 2004. election. btw, he too as sec. state used private emails. :)

    one day he will be routinley treated like pres. carter by the GOP

  15. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-09-14 18:55

    Leslie, good note on Powell’s history with that deliberately misleading intel. He’s not working for anyone now, not taking anyone’s orders. Would he have any motivation to mislead us now?

    (Bonus love note from Powell to South Dakota Democrats: Powell’s 13th rule of leadership is, “Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.”)

Comments are closed.