(JNi.media) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday announced the Iran nuclear deal “is worthy of support,” Reuters reported, citing House Democrats Earl Blumenauer and Brad Sherman. In fact, according to the sources, she believes “it puts us in a potentially stronger position.”
Politico’s Michael Crowley recalled Tuesday the 2008 presidential campaign, in which Obama said he would meet with Iran’s leader without preconditions, and Hillary called him “reckless and naïve.”
“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton the Iowa Quad-City Times in July, 2007.
In a debate in Charleston, SC, Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet without precondition, in his first year as president, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Two down, three to go.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said, adding that she would first send out envoys to test the waters.
What a difference eight years make—four of which Obama was her boss.
Hillary’s main competitor for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, twieeted:
“The #IranDeal is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep us from being drawn into another never-ending war.”
He’s actually right, should Iran attain its nuclear bombs behind the shield of this deal, the ensuing war would not be the never-ending, but the really-quickly-ending kind.
The Republican presidential candidates were busy competing who would vilify the deal more.
Lindsey Graham told Bloomberg:
“If the initial reports regarding the details of this deal hold true, there’s no way as president of the United States I would honor this deal. It’s incredibly dangerous for our national security, and it’s akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by the P5+1, because it ensures their primary antagonist, Iran, will become a nuclear power, and allows them to rearm conventionally.”
Say what you will, the man knows his Middle East politics.
A president who wants to kill the deal can use his or her (should Carly Fiorina win) executive authority to re-impose the suspended US sanctions on Iran and to withdraw from the organizations involved in implementing the agreement.
It would anger the entire world, naturally, and it’s likely no one would support such a move, leaving those renewed sanctions quite toothless.
Scott Walker released a statement that could have been written by the same guy who writes PM Netanyahu’s tweets:
“President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures … the deal rewards the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with a massive financial windfall, which Iran will use to further threaten our interests and key allies, especially Israel.”
Chris Christie released a statement:
“The president is playing a dangerous game with our national security, and the deal as structured will lead to a nuclear Iran and, then, a nuclearized Middle East. The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head.”
Mike Huckabee moralized on Twitter:
“Shame on the Obama admin for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’”
And Marco Rubio said in a statement:
“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism.”
The deal also gives the mullahs a lot of mullah. $80 billion, give or take. They’ve already collected $19 billion in their assets abroad as incentives during the talks.