واشنگتن پست : اگر شما صلح را دوست داريد بايد از توافق نامه اتمي با ايران  متنفر باشيد

If you love peace, you will

loathe the Iran deal

Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks on Tuesday at Austria International Centre in Vienna. (Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images

It is no secret the Iran deal is fraught with loopholes, weaknesses and concession. The president is forced then to argue the alternative is war. He is wrong both with regard to the region and to U.S. action.President Obama’s deal dismantles the sanction system. Once dismantled, business will rush in to bolster Iran. And under the bizarre terms of the Iran deal, existing deals are grandfathered even if the plug is pulled (!), so Iran continues to reap the economic rewards from projects and contracts put in place before it is caught cheating. There is no longer even the faint hope sanctions will cause Iran to capitulate. To the contrary the U.S. is obligated to help build up Iran’s technology and trade, protect it from sabotage and loosen up over $100B. We make confrontation, both nuclear and non-nuclear in the region more likely. We remove restraints on an aggressive state and help revitalize it, enabling it to be that much more effective against our Sunni and Israeli allies. More violence, chaos and instability is the very likely result in the short-term.In the long-term consider what the deal does to American decision-making.  All along there have been conservative skeptics who doubt the efficacy of sanctions. Especially in the case of Iran, where the president refused to tighten the noose significantly as the Kirk-Menendez legislation would have done, sanctions did not prevent Iran, as the president has now revealed, from getting within two to three months of nuclear breakout.

This is why some skeptics on the right have argued all along that sanctions are not the way to go. Joshua Muravchik wrote earlier this year, “Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.” Likewise, former U.S. ambassador to the United NationsJohn Bolton has long criticized those hoping that sanctions would be sufficient to end Iran’s nuclear program.There are popular arguments against military action. For one thing, for most in the West, the hope that sanctions will work and can be tightened is enough to justify the risk that Iran will move to a bomb even with sanctions in place. So long as sanctions offer a way out, Israeli military action is extremely problematic and would leave Israel open to accusations that it chose war over a viable peaceful alternative. As long as sanctions are in place or the prospect of even stronger sanctions exists, it is politically untenable for most American politicians and for the Israeli government to choose a military option.

Fast forward to a president who inherits Obama’s Hobson’s choice. Option one is to allow Iran to “sneak out” (cheat) or just bide its time to reach the point it is allowed an industrial-size nuclear program. Option two is military action to stop Iran from going nuclear. The sanctions system would be in ruins, thanks to a Democratic president. The arguments against the Muravchik/Bolton view are not relevant any longer; there is no sanctions system to fall back onto, and it is impossible to re-create it before Iran breaks out. At that point, military action may become not only politically feasible but also desirable.

In short, the administration —  by wrecking the sanctions system — lifts barriers to U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran in the long-run and in the short–term almost certainly increases conflict. Objections to giving Iran access to more than $100 billion and to conventional weapons would all by themselves justify voting it down, but if the deal goes through then military action will become the only alternative to a nuclear-armed Iran. That’s not a choice Democrats want to hand off to the next president — whether it is President Walker or President Biden.

Regardless of how one feels now about the military option, the reality is that once sanctions are gone, the chance of U.S. or Israeli military action goes up exponentially and violence in the region almost certainly increase. That is why peace-loving lawmakers should block a deal that is premised on building up Iran’s military might and depriving the U.S. of non-military tools to restrict Iran. The irony is that the most liberal president we have ever had — supported by the most liberal faction of the Democratic Party (who would help sustain a veto) — would set that all in motion — unless of course Congress blocks the deal.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.