These are some of the questions being raised by commentators from various political and ideological perspectives. What is so?
Here are several quotes from and links to interesting articles. The most sad and frightening, if true, is the last one.
"What’s most troubling about the White House’s Jew-baiting campaign is
that it appears to be a deliberate attempt to turn the debate about the
Iran deal into a debate about the influence of rich, powerful Jews with
suspect loyalties to their home country. The fact is, the Iran deal
isn’t bad because Israel says so, but because it’s bad for America.
Another sad fact is that when you ally your country with an
obscurantist, anti-Semitic, criminal regime, you’re bound to adopt some
of their tactics."
An interesting proposal:
"This accord will strengthen a contemptible regime. And so I
propose—futilely, I know—that now, in the aftermath of the accord,
America proceed to weaken it. The conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action should be accompanied by a resumption of our hostility to
the Iranian regime and its various forces. Diplomats like to say that
you talk with your enemies. They are right. And we have talked with
them. But they are still our enemies. This is the hour not for a fresh
start but for a renovation of principle. We need to restore
democratization to its pride of place among the priorities of our
foreign policy and oppress the theocrats in Tehran everywhere with
expressions, in word and in deed, of our implacable hostility to their
war on their own people. We need to support the dissidents in any way we
can, not least so that they do not feel abandoned and alone, and
tiresomely demand the release of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi
from the house arrest in which they have been sealed since the crackdown
in 2009. (And how in good conscience could we have proceeded with the
negotiations while the American journalist Jason Rezaian was a captive
in an Iranian jail? Many years ago, when I studied the Dreyfus affair, I
learned that there are times when an injustice to only one man deserves
to bring things to a halt.) We need to despise the regime loudly and
regularly, and damage its international position as fiercely and
imaginatively as we can, for its desire to exterminate Israel. We need
to arm the enemies of Iran in Syria and Iraq, and for many reasons. (In
Syria, we have so far prepared 60 fighters:
America is back!) We need to explore, with diplomatic daring, an
American-sponsored alliance between Israel and the Sunni states, which
are now experiencing an unprecedented convergence of interests.
But we will do none of this. We will instead persist in letting the
fire spread and letting time tell, which we call realism. Wanting not to
fight wars, we refuse to join struggles. Sometimes, I guess, history
really is a rut."
The rest of this article:
And here is a very different evaluation on the same website, which posits "the summary is that the administration has both specific facts and
longer-term historic patterns on its side in recommending the deal."
Here is another defense of the Iran agreement by a former US Under-Secretary of State:
Here are a different set of facts:
"fairly unambiguous conclusions: that the Western delegates crossed
all of the red lines that they drew themselves and conceded most of what
was termed critical at the outset; and that the Iranians have achieved
almost all of their goals."
Here is a review and synopsis of an Iranian plan:
There are some areas in which the Iran agreement might actually bump into law and legal authority:
"Even if Congress doesn’t vote to bar President Obama from lifting
sanctions on Iran, the president still wouldn’t be able to deliver fully
on the deal’s unprecedented sanctions-lifting commitments. They were
promised regardless of any future Iranian aggression in the region,
sponsorship of terrorist acts or other misconduct.
Some of the
U.S. statutes allow the president to lift certain sanctions on Iran. But
many of the most important sanctions—including sanctions against Iran’s
central bank—cannot be waived unless the president certifies that Iran
has stopped its ballistic-missile program, ceased money-laundering and
no longer sponsors international terrorism. He certainly can’t do that
now, and nothing in the deal forces Iran to take either step. The
Security Council’s blessing of the nuclear agreement has no bearing on
these U.S. sanctions.
The administration faces another serious
problem because the deal requires the removal of state and local
Iran-related sanctions. That would have been all right if Mr. Obama had
pursued a treaty with Iran, which would have bound the states, but his
executive-agreement approach cannot pre-empt the authority of the
For the full article see:
All sorts of interesting clauses and side deals keep appearing in public awareness such as the following suspicion that the deal "requires" the US to help protect the Iranian nuclear facilities against cyber and military attacks:
And here is a counter to some of Kerry's claims:
And here is another voice that examines the Iran deal from the perspective of the Democratic party:
The following is a sad and frightening conclusion from an article, which if true make Obama and Kerry out to be short-sighted and possibly dangerous leaders:
"Yet when even a famous Iranian “moderate” like the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani
has said—as he did in 2001, contemplating a nuclear exchange—that “the
use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.
However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to
contemplate such an eventuality,” how can deterrence work?
The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives before us are not Mr.
Obama’s deal or war. They are conventional war now or nuclear war later.
recently declared that Israel would be making a “huge mistake” to take
military action against Iran. But Mr. Kerry, as usual, is spectacularly
wrong. Israel would not be making a mistake at all, let alone a huge
one. On the contrary, it would actually be sparing itself—and the rest
of the world—a nuclear conflagration in the not too distant future."
For the article which comes to these conclusions see: