Iran – A Troubling Future

Evaluating politicized outcomes requires a rather peculiar approach. Whereas (normally) one would evaluate an outcome based on a comparison with “best possible” ideals this is not the case with government policy. It’s always the least invasive paired with highest optics factor at play and the lowest possible common denominator mated with the least likely to be sustainable.

Once one manages to overcome the native objection to this type of performance standard it becomes quite easy to understand the why/how policies such as Obamacare happen and why the Iranian Nuke Deal was inevitable. A so-called Agreement alleged to throttle Iran’s nuclear ambitions that contains no real capacity for doing so. Iran’s nuclear capacity was well established as far back as 2003; this was known. It is and was always known that Iran’s key source of nuclear technology support (intellectual and physical) was and is coming from both Russia and China (Germany and France too). Don’t you find it strange that these Nations were co-arbitrators with the same signature authority as that of the U.S.?

It is and will continue to be the policy of the Iranian Theocracy to pursue an offensive posture. This too was and is known which logically surrenders to the understanding that Iran has no intention of ever giving up its nuclear ambitions. Now then, with all this aside, why would Congress pass a piece of legislation (Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015) that has no capacity, whatsoever, to alter the inevitability of an Agreement with Iran that will do nothing of what it claims to accomplish?

Questions, Questions, Questions!

Answer: Using our previously stated filters one can (only) conclude that the entire affair is meant to accomplish one, and possibly both, of the following:

(1) Create a “trigger point” that will give a latter Administration the basis upon which to act (Militarily).

(2) Provide the President with yet another policy failure to add to his claimed legacy of success or for John Kerry to use as a foundation for challenging Hillary; what a tragic-comedy that would be.

Often, events like these are compared to that of the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the claim that his inability to contain Hitler was the chief cause of WWII. What if, as it is more likely the case, that Chamberlain’s great upset was in discovering that he was merely the cover for an ambition he had no control of and that in order to get civilians to willingly surrender themselves to the process they needed to allow Hitler to do what he was always going to do; put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger!

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Geo-Poli, Poli-Philos. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *