By Sal Bommarito

The Middle East continues to be a powder keg, literally, exacerbated by the milquetoast response of the U.S. and its coalition to the ISIS threat and an impending deal with Iran that would enable it to build a nuclear bomb in the near future.

This blog has lambasted the administration and Arab countries opposing ISIS for underestimating the potential of the insurgency and by responding in a manner that has allowed it to become a phenomenon attractive to young people around the world. More aggressive action is necessary immediately to prevent ISIS and its affiliates from becoming an existential threat to the Middle East.

But, this week, the Iran nuclear deal is front and center. Two New York Times articles will be referenced in this post. The first addresses the advocacy of Secretary of State John Kerry for an Iran treaty. The second outlines the growing conflict between the Obama administration and Israel pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program.

John Kerry is desperate to win a significant foreign policy victory. He has, unsuccessfully to this point, invested in personal relationships with several individuals in the Middle East, Europe and Russia trying to bring peace to the world. The Times states, “ . . . [because of] Kerry’s inordinate attention to [the Iran nuclear negotiations], there is an impression that he wants this agreement more so than the Iranians.” And, his “eagerness” is an “open invitation” for Iran to demand more concessions. The article references Kerry’s unsuccessful Middle East efforts that ended in “bitter recriminations between Israel and Palestine,” along with little progress to end the civil war in Syria. Regarding Russia, the U.S. is not even at the negotiating table in talks to end the violence in Ukraine.

Couple Kerry’s zeal with Obama’s obvious legacy ambitions and the situation could be explosive for the Middle East. If Kerry and Obama had their way, Iran would surely have a nuclear weapon in the near term. Fortunately, Congress will not allow the administration to give away the ranch because two U.S. politicians are worried about how history will remember them.

This all leads us to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has arrived in Washington to address Congress, without endorsement by the Obama administration, to discuss the dangers associated with an Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu considers an Iranian nuke an existential threat, and he should know given his country’s proximity to Iran and Iran’s longstanding anti-Semitic posture and objective to annihilate the State of Israel.

In a Times article, the White House offered a number of unconvincing arguments that suggest a deal with Iran is the best course of action. Unfortunately, the administration is not revealing pertinent information because it does not believe Americans are capable of understanding the gravity of the negotiations, or there are no strong factors supporting a deal.

The Times story is chock full of squishy comments by the administration and a number of contradictions. The purpose of the White House comments was to discredit Netanyahu by implying that he does not appreciate the process. This is a curious tact given Israel’s concerned about how Iran would use a nuclear in the region in the next year, in ten years and forever. The basis of the prime minister’s perspective is Israeli intelligence on the matter, which is likely more substantive than U.S. information.

The U.S. stated that Netanyahu “has failed to present a feasible alternative [to the American proposals, which are current not known in any detail].” Really? Israel wants to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, which was the original intent of the U.S., if memory serves me correct. Obama is just not listening to Netanyahu or anyone else that would interfere with his deal to improve relations with a mortal enemy of America.

The U.S. indicated, “that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extensive period was preferable to a breakdown in talks . . .” When dealing with nuclear proliferation, imperfect treaties are could be deadly. If the U.S. objective is no nukes for Iran, this deal does not make sense.

“The alternative to not having a new treaty is losing inspections.” This comment is contradicted in two other parts of the story. Iran has not answered “a dozen questions by the Atomic Energy Agency about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program.” And, “last week Iran stonewalled inspectors on answering most of [their] questions.” Clearly, Iran is not cooperating before the deal is signed, meaning that it will not cooperate afterwards either. Without verification of compliance, Iran will be free to do many things in secrecy.

The balance of the article addresses time schedules and how quickly Iran could develop a bomb if it opts out of a treaty. This all nonsense. The Obama administration is prepared to give Iran the ability to produce a bomb in about ten years, or sooner if it cheats. Congress should trash this proposal and step up sanctions against Iran until it agrees to indefinitely defer its nuclear ambitions. This would benefit the Middle East, Israel, Sunnis in the region and the U.S.

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reported that President Hassan Rouhan came out swinging and criticized nuclear-armed nations on Wednesday. Naturally, he focused on the U.S. and Israel for being hypocritical about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Considering that Rouhan was chosen to deal with Iran’s detractors and to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United Nations Security Council, it was surprising that the president spoke so aggressively, especially since a deal is in the balance. In his speech, the Iranian leader indicated that his country does not “covet” nuclear weapons. This is the principal focus of the negotiations that are underway. Iran, he said, would use its nuclear capabilities only for peaceful purposes, a comment most do not believe.

Rouhan pointed out that several countries have nuclear weapons, and these weapons have not enabled any country to find peace. [This is a reference to the U.S. Even with its vast arsenal, it is always involved in conflict.] The U.S. has not actually used a nuclear weapon since World War II, and it has reduced the size of its inventory dramatically over time. The threat of a nuclear attack assisted the U.S. as it fended off the U.S.S.R during the Cold War.

Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons, but the Arms Control Association, a research group, says Israel has between 100 to 200 nuclear warheads.

It is likely that Rouhan was reacting to the grumbling by hawkish leaders and clerics in Iran. He wanted to assure his countrymen that he will negotiate assertively with the U.S. Additionally, he may be frustrated by difficult negotiations that are underway, and the possibility they will not be successful.

U.S. senators on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they are skeptical that any sensible agreement will evolve from the current negotiations. In fact, the Senate is ready to propose sanctions against Iran if a deal is not signed by March 24. The Security Council “has given themselves until [the same date] to reach the basics of a permanent agreement.”

The countries most interested in the negotiations, outside of the Security Council, are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. It is lobbying the U.S., the president and Congress to not provide flexibility to Iran regarding its nuclear program, and to increase sanctions.

Saudi Arabia has a similar attitude about Iran’s nuclear program, but it has been much less vocal. Iran is always at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia in their fight for dominance of the Arab world. If Iran produces a nuclear weapon, the Saudis will likely buy one. An arms race will ensue.

Some have argued that if other countries have nuclear arms, why shouldn’t Iran? These same people say that Iran will be responsible. On what basis? Given Iran’s attitude and disruptive behavior over the years, there is no reason to assume that it will not misuse a nuclear weapon, or wield it to bully other Arab nations.

Many observers are wondering why this agreement is such a high priority for President Obama, including a vast number of Americans. There are few nations in the region, if any, that are comfortable with the thought of a nuclear Iran.

By Sal Bommarito

Buried in the New York Times today is a story about the current negotiations with Iran relating to its nuclear program. The importance of these discussions cannot be overstated.

The Obama administration, the article suggests, is attempting to exclude Congress from the deliberations, possibly creating yet another constitutional crisis if the administration agrees to eliminate economic sanctions. The president cannot sign a treaty without Senate approval, but he can, in the short term, decrease or eliminate economic sanctions against Iran. This could be his tactic even though the Senate voted 99-0 to install the current sanctions. Neither political party would be happy about being excluded from such an important diplomatic event.

Development of a nuclear weapon by the Iranian regime would destabilize the Middle East, and represent an existential threat to Israel, all Sunni states and even ISIS, should it eventually create its own country. Allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon now or any time in the foreseeable future would be a dangerous mistake.

The global community is for the most part not in favor of another rogue nation developing a nuclear capacity. Iran has proven time and again that its political and religious aspirations are not benign by any measure. A nuclear weapon would severely tilt the tenuous balance in the region.

A U.S. decision to terminate sanctions against Iran if it agrees only to “defer” the enrichment of material needed to make a weapon could impact diplomatic conversations relating to ISIS. Despite Iran’s proximity to ISIS forces and the likelihood it will become an active target of the terrorists, Iran has not been overtly involved in the hostilities. It is inconceivable that Iran will not somehow attempt to link its engagement with ISIS to a relaxation or elimination of sanctions and increased latitude to pursue its nuclear vision.

Many believe economic sanctions are having a profound impact on Iran’s economy. And, the continuing implementation of sanctions lessens the possibility that someday the U.S will need to bomb Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon. So, decreasing the leverage afforded by the sanctions at any time is unwise.

All this speaks to the utter disdain Obama has towards Congress and his questionable judgment relating to the diplomatic and military tactics being used in the ISIS conflict.