By Sal Bommarito

The furor about an impending Iran nuclear deal continues to grow. President Obama is lobbying Americans to gain their support for his “outline.” He even summoned one of his primary apologists, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, to the White House for a chat about the deal. He wrote a follow-up article after his meeting with the president. Click here to get Friedman’s take on the controversy.

There are many things about the negotiations with Iran that are suspicious and should cause any experienced negotiator to be skeptical. One is related to the negotiating strategy of the U.S. From my vantage point, the U.S. has most of the bargaining chips, yet it appears that American negotiators have been too quick to capitulate to Iranian demands. One could reasonably ask whether this is about American security or Obama’s legacy.

A most important factor should be the state of Iran’s economy. It is in free fall because of United Nations and U.S. sanctions coupled with a significant decline in oil prices. Waiting or stalling would increase the pressure on Iran as its citizens experience the sting of economic turmoil.

When one party in a negotiation has such a powerful advantage, he must capitalize on it. Instead, the U.S. indicated it would end sanctions relating to the nuclear issue, which would increase Iran’s revenues. With more cash flow, it will surely accelerate its nuclear program and supplement its reign of terror in the Middle East. Perhaps, the president should look back at Ronald Reagan’s dealings with the Soviet Union. He successfully implemented a strategy that virtually bankrupted Russian thereby ending the Cold War.

The negotiations have been one-sided. Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure and too much enriched uranium, which will enable it to produce a weapon in ten years, or earlier if Iran violates the terms of a treaty. The U.S. receives a “theoretical” delay of one year in the ability of Iran to build a nuclear weapon. [I wonder how the hell that calculation was made.] Additionally, Iran is supposedly giving inspectors unfettered access to its nuclear operations to ensure compliance to a treaty. We all know hour cooperative Iran has been over the years in this regard.

The U.S. has important allies in the Middle East that have been disappointed too often. The Iran deal has made the group even more reticent about the Obama administration. A nuclear deal with our most despised enemy in the region is being negotiated as our friends, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States object.

It is doubtful that a treaty will stop Iran from moving forward with a plan to build a nuclear weapon. So, other Middle East countries will surely insist on a similar right to initiate a nuclear program. The Iran deal will be the impetus for a regional arms race, a phenomenon that will make the area that much more unstable.

Some facts about Iran are indisputable. It hates America. In fact, its ayatollahs are regularly leading chants of “Death to America.” Iran similarly despises Sunnis and non-Muslims, as compared to ISIS, which abhors Shiites, non-Muslims and non-Arabs. Iran continually supports terrorist groups that have destabilized Sunni regimes. Yemen is the latest insurgency sponsored by Iran. Israel insists that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to its survival. There should be no doubt about this given that Iranian leaders have said they want to obliterate the State of Israel. And so the big questions are why would the U.S. engage our mortal enemy, and for a nuclear weapon, no less? And, what does Obama expect to gain from this adventure?

And then, there is the critical issue of Iran’s compliance with the terms of the treaty. Most people are not comforted by Obama’s assurances that the U.S. can or will stop Iran anytime in the future from building a nuclear weapon. He said the U.S. spends $600 billion on defense each year while Iran spends only $30 billion. So, why should Americans or Sunni Arabs worry?

This bluster is meaningless unless Iran is convinced that the U.S. will actually enforce the treaty. Previous “lines in the sand” drawn by Obama have been empty threats (consider Syria). It is highly unlikely that Obama will dispatch bombers to Iran if it violates the treaty. Once Iran has a nuke, it will be too late and the region will be permanently destabilized.

Unlike many other situations, the U.S. has options. A better tactic would be to stall and allow financial events to destroy the Iranian economy. Another is for Obama to caucus with Congress to test his decisions before signing a treaty. I, for one, would feel much safer if Congress endorses his plan given its current level of skepticism. I do not believe the president should take such an important step without more eyes on the deal. After all, it’s a nuclear weapon we are talking about.

By Sal Bommarito

Liberals are scrambling to justify U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran. Thankfully, these entreaties are falling on many deaf ears. Nicholas Kristof, in his New York Times op-ed, is the latest to make a case for a deal with Iran.

The most important assumptions being made by Obama apologists are the following:

• Iran will develop a nuclear bomb whether the U.S. supports a treaty or not.
• Iran would be a responsible possessor of a nuclear weapon.
• Iran will never employ a nuclear weapon because the U.S. and/or Israel will retaliate.
• Iran will not cheat or violate provisions of a new treaty.
• Iran will allow unfettered inspections of its nuclear operations.
• Iran will become a more productive participant in the international community of nations if it owns a nuke.
• Iran’s leaders are not radical Islamists determined to kill non-believers.
• Sanctions and low oil prices will not have a long-term impact on Iran.

Iran has been working on a nuclear bomb for many years. Israel would probably be the first to know if Iran had achieved its objective, so it is likely that Iran is some distance from producing a DELIVERABLE weapon. Sanctions and dramatically lower oil revenues could hamper production of a bomb for a long time especially if the country is destabilized by economic turmoil.

How could any sensible person conclude that Iran will be responsible if it possessed a nuclear weapon? Iran is the greatest purveyor of terrorism in the Middle East and has worked diligently to topple Sunni states. It would use a nuke to bully other Arab countries. Moreover, Iran’s ownership of a bomb would cause an arms race in the region that includes Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Middle East will become even more perilous if this occurs.

Iran has violated United Nations mandates for years. It will surely continue to cheat after signing a new treaty.

Numerous people have indicated that a nuclear weapon would make Iran a more constructive “global citizen” (Kristof reiterated this point). I don’t understand how ownership of a nuclear device that could possibly set off a world war and kill hundreds of thousands of people will improve the behavior of a rogue nation.

Iran has stated on numerous occasions that it detests all people except Shiite Arabs. That means it plans to kill non-believers whenever possible.

It’s been written and said many times that President Obama thirsts for an epic diplomatic achievement, a legacy issue. For this reason, he is prepared to make too many concessions. When all the details of the Iran treaty are revealed, I expect Congress, Democrats and Republicans, along with average Americans to be horrified with the proposed deal.