I wanted to write a column about the agreement involving Iran, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, the European Union and the United States concerning Iran’s nuclear program. June was too early because the details were not yet completed or publicized. In July, there was a similar problem until mid-month. Finally this month, the deal has been struck and it’s time to express an opinion.

At this point, I’ll lose a large portion of readers because I am firmly against the agreement. Those who accept the president’s arguments should now move to something else in the paper. For those who also are firmly against the agreement or who haven’t made up their minds, read on.

I’m against the agreement because it relies on the honesty of the Iranians. Iranian General Soleimani of the Quds Force traveled to Russia while the final touches to the executive agreement were being negotiated in violation of international prohibitions against any foreign travel by him.

So Iran was violating an existing international agreement while it negotiated a new one. Much has been written about the verification part of the agreement. In short, Iran has up to 24 days after being notified that the international inspectors want to inspect a certain place in Iran before such inspections could take place.

The signatories to the agreement must agree by majority vote before a request to inspect can even be made. There are eight signatories so five must agree. If Iran, Russia, and China don’t agree, every other signatory must demand the inspection. If that weren’t enough of an obstacle, the leader of Iran has said that no military sites will be inspected.

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

What will be the consequence of an international team finding a violation? Secretary Kerry states that “snap back” sanctions will be imposed.

Really?

If sanctions are removed now and companies in Britain, France, Germany, or any country in the EU invest in Iran, what is the probability that snap-back sanctions will ever occur?

I like history so I read a lot. World War II interests me in particular. My mind returns to the 1938 Munich agreement. Britain, France, and Italy allowed Germany to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Five months later Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and WW II began about six months after that.

The British PM, Neville Chamberlain, didn’t say, “Peace with this treaty or war.” He did wave the treaty and state that he had secured “peace in our time.”

Iran is not Germany, but Barack Obama sounds a lot like Neville Chamberlain to me. His high-minded intentions during the current negotiations parallel that of Chamberlain’s intentions in 1938. Both trusted their negotiating opponent. The Supreme Leader of Iran also reminds me of Adolf Hitler because both threatened the Jewish people and had delusions of power and an appetite for more territory.

Very few people believed that Hitler would really follow through with his mad thoughts in “Mein Kampf,” but he did. Iranian leaders are even more explicit regarding their mad thoughts about Israel and Jews everywhere.

If Iran were to honor this agreement in every aspect, it will be about a month away from exploding its nuclear bomb sometime between 2025 and 2030.

In the meantime, Iran can develop delivery means and we’re freeing more than $50 billion of frozen assets and allowing Iran to earn even more money selling its oil to buy conventional weapons and to finance terrorism all over the world.

President Obama is justly famous for presenting false strawman arguments. In this case, the alternative to this treaty is not war; the alternative is a better treaty.

If you believed President Obama when he said Obamacare would lower expenses, you could keep your insurance and you could keep your doctor, I predict you will adore this latest work of a failed president.

 

Michael Waldron is a retired lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army, who was born and raised in Niles. He previously served on the Niles Community School Board of Education. He can be reached at ml.waldron@sbcglobal.net.