BREAKING NEWS: Two military facilities in Tennessee were attacked this morning. One attack involved a drive-by shooting in which dozens of shots were fired at a military recruiting office. There are few details at this point, but reports suggest four Marines and one law enforcement officer may be dead. Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke described the attack as a "very terrible situation."
Obama's Retreat
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is no conservative. In fact, he's often quite hostile to conservatives. But his column commenting on President Obama's press conference yesterday about the Iran nuclear deal reads like it was written by Dick Cheney!
Milbank begins by describing the exchange between CBS reporter Major Garrett and the president over the American hostages still languishing in Iran and how their fate was excluded from this deal. Needless to say, Obama did not take kindly to Garrett's question. But as Milbank noted, Obama's response was "revealing:"
"Full of Sturm und Drang, [Obama] ultimately acknowledged that the United States just doesn't have the clout to enforce its will.
"This was an undercurrent of the whole news conference Wednesday afternoon, and of Obama's overall defense of the Iran deal. He was tough and strong, but in service of the argument that American power is limited -- that this is the best deal we could get with our declining leverage. His defenders call it realism; it also may amount to ratifying retreat. . . ."
Milbank went on to describe Obama's press conference as "a powerful case -- for American weakness."
If Milbank can see the defeatism and weakness in Obama's remarks, then surely the mullahs in Tehran see it too. No doubt that is why they are literally celebrating this deal as a great victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran Brags Of Obama's Concessions
If you needed confirmation that Obama's deal is bad, consider how Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, characterized it in a speech Tuesday:
"In the negotiations, we aspired to achieve four goals . . . All four goals have been achieved today. . .
"At the start of the negotiations, the other side would tell us that . . . Iran could have only 100 centrifuges. . . . Today, the agreement is carried out under conditions that state that [Iran] will retain over 6,000 centrifuges, over 5,000 of which will be at Natanz and over 1,000 at Fordo. All centrifuges at Natanz will continue to enrich [uranium]. [Natanz and Fordo are major nuclear sites.]
"They [the U.S.] said, 'The period of your restrictions will be 20 years, in addition to 25 years.' Later they said '20 years and 10 years.' Then they said: 'Last word -- 20 years, and we will not capitulate any more.' But in the final days of the negotiations, they went down to eight years.
"On the issue of research and development -- they [the U.S.] would say that only [first generation] IR-1 [centrifuges] would be allowed. . . . Then they said: 'IR-2 at most.' We wanted an agreement [under which] on the day of its implementation we would begin to inject gas into [advanced] IR-8 [centrifuges] and that is exactly what we achieved today.
"On the issue of Arak [another major nuclear facility], they would say: 'The reactor will remain but the heavy water [facility] is null. . . This is an absolute red line for us. Today the terms were agreed; according to them, the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action explicitly notes the Arak heavy water reactor. This reactor will be completed with the same heavy water nature and with the characteristics noted in the agreement.
"On the issue of Fordo . . . they said, 'At Fordo there will be not one centrifuge, and it will be a center for isotope research.' . . . I will be brief and say that today, over 1,000 centrifuges will be installed at Fordo. . .
"On the issue of sanctions, they would say, 'Months must pass and you must earn [our] trust so that later the sanctions can be gradually frozen -- not lifted. . . . Today I announce to the Iranian nation that under this agreement . . . all the sanctions -- even the embargo on weapons, missiles, and proliferation -- will be lifted. . ."
Perhaps the Senate should ask Rouhani to testify before Congress about how Iran beat Obama and got everything it wanted.
Voters Know It's Bad
A new Rasmussen poll finds that just 39% of likely voters support Obama's deal with Iran. More importantly, 65% of voters believe that the Obama Administration must have Congress' support for the deal.
Whether Congress can override Obama's veto to stop this bad deal remains to be seen. But it is very unlikely that Congress would actually vote to approve it.
Only 34% of voters believe Iran can be trusted to honor the agreement, while 60% believe Iran will cheat. As for the stability of the Middle East, just 22% believe the deal will make the region safer, while 42% believe the deal will make the Middle East more dangerous.
Here's one more reason why it is a bad deal. My friend Elliott Abrams, who is an expert on national security, reviewed the text of the deal and among the many faults he found this incredible giveaway to Iran:
"Here is paragraph 25 of the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:
25. If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy."
So while the political left in America is pushing a radical boycott and divestment effort against our ally Israel, the Obama Administration has promised Iran that it will go to the mat to fight similar efforts against the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a top human rights abuser. Every member of Congress should denounce this appeasement of Iran and blatant discrimination against Israel.