This Conservative Supports an Iran Deal
Only blind authoritarians refuse to talk and negotiate with other nations. Ronald Reagan certainly didn’t take that approach with the Soviet Union and we shouldn’t with Iran. The over-the-top apocalyptic rhetoric from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh has made the opposition to this deal laughable.
Let’s get right into the fear mongering by taking it head on. In fact, moments ago, I heard Sean Hannity state on his radio show, “This deal ensures that Iran will attack (nuke) Israel.” I’m paraphrasing from memory, but that’s the level of hysterics being thrown around by the neoconservatives.
Jay Engel of the Reformed Libertarian lays down a (shall we say) slightly more rational view,
Even if Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon (again, there is no proof that they are doing so), there is zero evidence, much to the opposite of the scare-mongering of Bibi Netanyahu, that they would initiate an attack on Israel. Think about it. Why would Iran threaten its entire population by launching an attack on Israel who has nukes and many other warheads, along with the backing of the entire United States military. Iran, like every other state in history, desires power over its people. This means that they want to keep that power. No state would put itself in jeopardy when one false move could wipe out the entire nation. Margolis points out: “If Iran indeed had a few nuclear weapons and all-important delivery systems why would it attack Israel? Israel has an indestructible nuclear triad: missiles, aircraft, and most lately German-supplied submarines with nuclear-armed missiles on station in the Arabian and Red Seas. If Iran attacked Israel, its nuclear forces would wipe Iran’s 70 million people off the map.” Israel is not one bit threatened by a Iranian nuclear program.
Another point likely lost on those who rely on mainstream news sources is the fact that Iran produces essentially no suicide terrorism and has no history of doing so. If you don’t know the actual statistics, that’s not what you’d be led to believe watching FOX news (actually any mainstream American news), is it? Learn more on this fact from the American Conservative.
Believe it or not, there are other conservative voices not engaging in chest thumping and fear mongering on this Iran deal. Jay Engel lists the following:
- Pat Buchanan, paleoconservative (that is, true conservative) commentator, founder of The American Conservative magazine, and adviser to several Republican Presidents, sees the deal as a positive development.
- Daniel Larison, one of the best foreign policy bloggers in the conservative fold from The American Conservative, here praises the deal as a victory for diplomacy.
- Phil Giraldi, a conservative and former counter-terrorism specialist at the CIA and he makes the argument here that we need to be very careful that the Israel lobby doesn’t overcome the progress made in this deal.
- Eric Margolis, self-described “Eisenhower Republican” and outstanding journalist, states in no uncertain terms that the anti-deal brigade is on the opposite side of America’s interests.
In short, there is a very strong conservative strain amongst the pro-deal faction here. There is no reason to confuse Fox News and its neoconservative fear-mongers with “the conservative position.” – Read more from Reformed Libertarian.
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is not among those supporting the good points of this deal. To his credit, he hasn’t joined the neoconservatives in their extreme doom and gloom rhetoric and has a history of opposing such rhetoric in the past.
[*The only reason I can find for opposing the deal is if it includes foreign aid–something I oppose across the board. However, most opponents of the deal are talking about money that actually clearly belongs to the Iranian people in the form of foreign assets.]
Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, lays out the case stated above pretty clearly in his interview with Newsmax TV–plus he does that thing you are never ever suppose to do; talk about the CIA’s coup of Iran’s elected leadership back in 1953.