Many of us remember that Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before a Congressional Committee during the Vietnam War, in camouflages, as an opponent of continued American support for the war. It was a time of deep division of the country, the scars of which remain with us today. Whether his act was ennobling as his supporters then and now claim, or a betrayal of his comrades engaged in furious battle in a faraway war will have to be left to future historians.
But Kerry’s latest public pronouncements in support of Pres. Obama’s highly controversial “deal:” with Iran are beyond the pale. It is certainly within limits of debate and propriety for the Secretary to criticize, or better still offer arguments, against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public denunciation of the proposed agreement. But Netanyahu has not questioned Obama’s intentions or motivations in arriving at them, however.
Kerry, on the other hand, has recently made statements in support of the proposed agreement suggesting that should it fail – due to Congressional opposition, in fact, apparently reflecting widespread if not majority opinion of the U.S. public – it will redound on the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Were that not going too far, he has hinted that such a reaction would not only include Israel but would result, he hints, at antagonism toward American Jews. The inferences smack of the worst kind of anti-Semitism. But perhaps more important, they demonstrate an increasing hysteria on his part and that of his State Department n egotiators in the validity of their arguments for endorsing the agreement.
Whatever the merits of the proposed agreement, it is clear that it has been arrived at through a series of concessions to the Iranians at almost every point in the argument. Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, took to National Public Radio this week [in its usual one-sided liberal presentation of events] to defend the President’s proposed agreement. [He is by the way, a Jew, and once again negates the simple anti-Semitic canard that American Jews vote or even sympathize with issues as a domineering political block or as only in Israel’s interests.]
Schiff’s defense of the Obama proposal was such a tangle of contradictions and rationalizations that it is hard to summarize. But it went from a claim that Iran could never as a sovereign state be expected to accept a blanket suppression of its nuclear bomb-making facilities to the argument that it would deliver an Iran capable of building weapons but forbidden to do so for 50 years through stringent inspection and international control. Mr. Schiff, 50 years is a very long time, especially in the Mideast, and most of us would settle for effective restraints of any duration at this point in the negotiations.
The Congressmen and other defenders of the proposed agreement continue to pile paper on top of paper to prove to us that the details for restraining the Iranian mullahs are adequate. Yet common sense intrudes: 1] this Iranian regime has a long and checkered history of violating its international commitments, including, of course, its signature to the non-proliferation agreements which it has already violated; 2] the UN International Atomic Energy Agency in the past not only did not restrain the mullahs’ violations of its agreements, but was not perspicacious in knowing when and where they were being violated; 3] the highest Iranian leadership has denied now, repeatedly and publicly, that they are committed to the very fine print of the agreement which the Obama Administration trumpets.
It is a bad agreement, arrived at in amateurish and faulty negotiation by the American side, and some way must be found to block it and to go on with putting restraints on an aggressor nation who hopes to use it to dominate the Middle East. That is the problem the Obama Administration has now dumped into the lap of the Congress, after trying to derail any effective Congressional action by a UN endorsement.
It will take statesmanship of a superior kind to untangle this American constitutional muddle, much less the overwhelming effort to check radical Islam terrorism emanating from Iran throughout the world – again Congressman Schiff and his likeminded supporters of the agreement call outside its scope but they admit within its benefices as it releases hundreds of billions of blocked Iranian assets.