SLL has been searching for a refutation of the negotiated framework with Iran that says more than that Iran is evil and untrustworthy, and makes off point analogies to Munich. Anyone who is aware of a good analysis critical of the actual terms of the framework, that refrains from the kind of bombast prevelant before anyone even knew the framework’s terms, please leave a link in the comments and SLL will post it. Here’s David Stockman with an extensive and favorable analysis of the framework, from davidstockmanscontracorner.com:
The Iranian framework agreement is an astonishingly good deal, and has the potential to become a historic game-changer. As Robert Parry astutely observed, its about much more than sheaving the threat that Iran will get the bomb:
“The April 2 framework agreement with Iran represents more than just a diplomatic deal to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It marks a crossroad that offers a possible path for the American Republic to regain its footing and turn away from endless war.”
The saliency of that observation lies in the fact that there is virtually nothing in the substance of the deal for the War Party to attack. So what they are doing is desperately hurtling the Iranian axis-of-evil narrative at the agreement, claiming that the regime is so untrustworthy, diabolical and existentially dangerous that no product of mere diplomacy is valid. The Iranians are by axiom hell-bent on evil and no mere “scrap of paper” will stop them.
But therein dwells the game-changing opportunity. To defeat the deal, the War Party will have to defend its three-decade long campaign of exaggerations, distortions and bellicose animosity toward the Iranian state. But that is impossible because the axis-of-evil narrative was never remotely true. Indeed, if the truth be told the War Party has never been required to defend its spurious propaganda thanks in large part to a lazy, gullible mainstream press that has been as negligent on the Iranian evil meme as they were on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
As will be demonstrated below, the evil Iran narrative rests on repetition and political bombast, not historical fact. Iran was turned into a pariah state not owing to its own deeds and actions, but because it served the domestic political needs of the War Party. That is, Bibi Netanyahu’s Israeli branch used it to win elections by mobilizing the right-wing and religious extremists against a purported external peril; and Washington’s neo-cons used it to rescue the Pentagon’s war machine and the military industrial complex after the cold war ended its reason for being.
So while the whole axis-of-evil narrative is bogus, the War Party is repairing to it in flat-out hysterical tones because it has nowhere else to go. Indeed, it did not take long for a shrill demagogue like GOP Senator Mark Kirk to play the Hitler card:
“I would say that Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran.”
No, Senator, what Hitler got out of Munich was the annexation of the Sudetenland which was 85% German; had been part of various German-speaking predecessor states from the Middle Ages until Versailles; and voted by referendum overwhelmingly to return to the fatherland. Whether the greater foolishness occurred in Paris in 1919, when the Sudetenland was handed to the Czech politicians as war spoils, or in Munich in 1938, when Chamberlain badly misjudged his interlocutor, is a topic which will keep the historians busy debating for centuries.
But Munich has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand because Iran is not remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in the US of A.
Its $350 billion GDP is the size of Indiana’s and its 68,000 man military is only slightly larger than the national guard of Texas. It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, most significantly, has had no nuclear weapons program for more than a decade.
To continue reading: All Praise To The Iranian Nuclear Framework
One concern I have, is that the Iran-Obama negotiation will end up like the North Korea-Clinton encounter. How will Iran be effectively monitored? From what I read there has been none to date. If that is true, where do any valid numbers come from. What is the risk that other Middle East countries will now want nukes also? Is any of this our business?
North Korea has the bomb and some missile capability. Does Iran have missile capability? And how much distance do they need?
Bottem line: I do not trust any country on either side to honor any agreement long term.
Below are two articles I saw today, but I am not sure if they meet all of your criteria.
Do you have the links?
Here are 3 more links to articles that do not like the Iran-Obama deal:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/iran-insists-theres-no-nuclear-agreement-just-a-statement-calls-u-s-liars/
http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/06/iran-us-agreed-immediate-lift-sanctions/
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/04/07/the-iran-agreement-charade-n1981444?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Here are the original two I screwed up and did not send:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/02/iran-nuke-agreement-full-of-holes/
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/06/citing-reality-canada-will-not-lift-sanctions-on-iran/
I do not trust Obama(Saul Alinsky disciple) or Iran at all. So my question is, how are you able to objectively sort this all out?
neilmdunn,
I read all the articles. I try to sort through this by separating criticisms based on Obama, and Iraq’s, general untrustworthiness, which would invalidate any negotiations before they began, from criticisms of the framework itself. What I was looking for was criticism of the framework, and from the list of links you gave me, the New York Post link has the most on point criticisms of the framework, versus the general criticisms of Obama, the negotiations, Iran, or differences in interpretation of what was in the agreement. I will post the New York Post article, and I may also post a an article from today’s Wall Street Journal, which summarizes the framework and Israel’s objections to the framework. I have already posted the initial AP summary of the framework, “Text of agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, from The Associated Press,” SLL, 4/3/15. http://straightlinelogic.com/2015/04/03/text-of-agreement-with-iran-on-its-nuclear-program-from-the-associated-press/
Thank you for the all the links, which SLL readers can read.
Robert