ShareThis Page
Editorials

The Iran deal: Put U.S. interests first

| Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

As President Obama's acolytes defended the indefensible Iranian nuclear deal over the Labor Day weekend, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey cut through their empty rhetoric and explained how this misbegotten accord increases, not decreases, the likelihood of a military conflict with the Islamic Republic.

Never mind delays of up to 24 days to inspect undeclared Iranian nuclear sites under this accord. The agreement gives “hundreds of billions of dollars to the world's largest and worst state sponsor of terrorism,” which openly despises America, Mr. Toomey said.

“And this deal would give Iran the capacity to inflict harm in much more destructive ways than it is currently able to do,” said Toomey. That “will make military conflict more likely, not less.”

And yet Mr. Obama's water carriers still insist that this bargain for Tehran is better than no deal at all. Joining the bucket brigade is Colin Powell, who called various aspects of the deal “remarkable.”

Of course, the former secretary of State also told the United Nations 12 years ago, in the run-up to war with Iraq, that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at the time supposedly had amassed a world-threatening stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. That cover story quickly fell apart.

Lawmakers have until Sept. 17 to vote on the Iran nuke deal, The Hill newspaper reports. More's the pity that Obama's supportive Senate Democrats would endorse this agreement despite the overwhelming arguments against it.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me