Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Shia/Shiite stability threat, regional threat, navigational threat (Persian Gulf), Russia/China satellite, a thallic sense of integrity particularly where infidels are concerned, the fact that Iran already possesses the technology and capability. If it is, principally, merely a discussion over “suspension” and not “elimination” then, if only to pen a few examples of the painfully conspicuous, the question still remains: Why a Deal with Iran and is the scheme even possible?
Yes, President Obama is looking for a policy legacy and Iran, with or without a “Deal”, can give it to him. Reagan, arguably, owns the “Won the Cold War with Russia” largely built on the “Star Wars” claim which, as it turns out, was never built (at least not as it was originally tendered). Moreover, let us not forget that Raegan wasn’t President when the Berlin Wall came down; how’s that for a migratory and transient legacy.
For the West, Iran is clearly a strategic policy conundrum; a nation with a remarkable history, an intelligent and moderate-to-passive public entrapped by a rabid band of pistol-whipping predators (should sound familiar) impaling the entire nation with the totalitarian banner of ultra-religious extremism. Unknown to most in Iran, and likely the West, is that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is a stage 4 cancer victim and a regime change is drawing near.
As with the Richard Nixon’s opening of the door to China legacy, could the Obama Administration’s strategy be more about probing Iran for a moderate than it is about a nuclear deal? If so then John Kerry, with the help of Pres. Obama, could be staging himself with a foreign policy chant no GOP contender can match; real or imagined. He’ll need something to cover his overwhelming elitism and domestic ambivalence.
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: Hillary Clinton Email-Gate is yet another example of how Clinton seems so very susceptible to self-inflicted wounds. It’s not just Mrs. Clinton’s personal server that is a problem for her and the Administration. The scope of risk can quickly expand if Mrs. Clintons personal aids, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and their personal email accounts they maintained, are exposed. Mrs. Clinton is “on tape” having said “…didn’t want people to get a hold of her emails and they set up the private server”. And during the Benghazi hearing she testified that she’d “…given all the documents” and yet we now know that wasn’t true because they were being stored on her personal server. If the scope of damage starts to involve the Administration they will turn on Mrs. Clinton and her hopes for a run at the White House will be over.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder