When
it comes to international agreements and treaties entered into by the United
States the general population is, as a whole, always clueless. Very few
citizens are even interested or have any sense that it affects their lives. Of
those who do, even a smaller number have any in-depth knowledge of what the
agreement or treaty entails. That small
number can be even further shaved by those who lack the historical awareness to
interpret the agreements in any meaningful way.
Likely the populations of other nations are even poorer at being notably
engaged.
For
better or worse, this Nation, as a whole, depends on leadership to make the
decisions that are in the best interest of the American People, more than with
any other actions taken by the Federal Government. Historically, the US has been pretty good at
this, with limited political complications.
So
how come nearly the entire US television watching population has seen, perhaps
multiple times, ads denouncing the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iranian
Deal)? How does anyone seriously
believe a 15 or 30 second ad can explain an argument against this 159 page agreement?
Who’s paying for these ads? What do they want to accomplish?
The
easy answer of course is that they want to influence political leadership by
swaying potential voters. However, there
is no referendum in process, so the influence they hope to achieve is through
public polling and the potential loss of financial support in upcoming
elections.
The
Republicans fell in line immediately, essentially before the ink was dry. It is
a revealing statement of its own that every
single Republican Congressmen denounced this Plan, a plan which is
enthusiastically applauded or supported by virtually
every single nation on this planet except one, as well as every
international organization (such as the UN and NATO). This is the leadership on
which we depend? Are these robots?
I
attempted to read as much as I could of the 159 page Agreement (109 on paper)
and eventually yielded to read a couple of the best objective summaries I could
find. Then I stepped back and tried to
see what was happening.
The
Agreement on its face is good. It links
extensive controls over the enrichment of natural uranium and supporting
hardware, limiting the production of U-235 to enrichment levels well below
those necessary for weapons (limited to 3.6% vs the necessary 90%). 150 inspectors will work full time for the
next decade and a half.
Even
though it ends in 15 years, Iran has agreed to never produce a nuclear weapon
and to rejoin the non-proliferation protocol which will put them in a more
vulnerable position than they are now for international sanctions and possible
military action.
The
arguments against the Agreement are entirely based on what ifs; what if Iran cheats, what if Iran can dodge the
inspectors, what if they use the money to promote terrorism (money which like
it or not is theirs)? These and other arguments in effect preclude any diplomatic solutions. Therein lays the real story.
The
governing body in Israel does not want a diplomatic solution. Netanyahu’s history and that portion of Israel’s
government that support him have had a long history of managing Israel’s security
through military actions. He still revels
in the glory of the 6-Day and Yom Kippur wars in which he participated
(actually fighting in the Yom Kippur War).
He
and his supporters want a military solution because they feel it would be more
conclusive and, if they were honest, more magnificent than mundane diplomacy. The key is they also want the United States
involved militarily. What he wouldn’t
give to have Lindsey Graham as President.
So
who is funding these ads? Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson are cutting the
checks. He’s a zealot supporter of Israel who has huge investments in casinos
in the Middle East, and (as an aside) funds anything that opposes Obama. Sheldon and those like him are the ones
hoping to sway the electorate to pressure the few Democrats, such as NY Sen.
Chuck Schumer, who are vulnerable to that kind of influence.
If
Sheldon succeeds then, well Forest Gump said it best: Stupid is as stupid does. It’s just too bad that the ignorance of
the public matched by the stupidity of Washington politics could possibly
result in the human tragedy of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment