ONE MORE TIME ABOUT "THE DEAL".

Two commentators to my blog “Why It is Bad”** presented arguments negating why my opinion that the Iran “Nuclear” Deal is bad.

I would also reiterate my position that the deal with Iran can not be a good one despite our President’s maneuvers to make it impossible for Congress and the nation to reject it. Monday’s US sponsored resolution in the UN Security Committee which was actively supported by Russia and China giving unanimous approval of the “treaty”. Yes I know it has been defined as an agreement not a treaty but what else could it be?

Since both Russia and China have economic interests that will benefit by the lifting of sanctions; one by the sale of arms and the other by access to needed petroleum.

No one can give a rational answer to the question why a country rich in oil needs to deveope nuclear power for peaceful use.

In rebuttal to my comparison with “Munich”, Alan Goldstein did correctly point out that before Munich permitting Nazi Germany to annex the German-speaking Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Germany had left the League of Nations, had occupied and remilitarized the Rhineland, and had annexed Austria. All acts of aggression.

His point being that Iran had not any such action against its neighbors. He disregards the fact that Iran has been the prop that has kept the Assad government in power in Syria, that has it has waged proxy wars in that part of the world by continually supported various terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebnon and the Yemen Al Queada insurgency as well as others world wide. This is the part of the Deal that my Munich reference was aimed at.

The “Deal” will not change any of these proxy war agressions by Iran . Instead it will increase that nation’s capabilities by allowing it access to millions of dollars

On July 21, 2015 Thanassis Cambanisa a columnist wrote:

“For years, U.S. leaders have staked their hopes for calming decades of sectarian war, insurgency, and tension in the Middle East on rehabilitating Iran, a bête noire in the eyes of Washington and its allies. But if there’s any hope of changing these dynamics, the United States is going to have to dive quickly and deeply into the region’s feuds. Wars have spiraled out of control in four Arab countries, and Iran is only partly to blame. A more cooperative Tehran — which may or may not materialize after the nuclear agreement sinks in — could open the door to calming the bloodshed in Syria, where Iran is a lead player. But the roots of the wars in Iraq and Yemen go deeper than Tehran’s machinations, and Iran has almost no role in the Libyan conflict.

After the deal, like before, U.S. interests will be challenged by clever and aggressive foes, but also by ruthless allies. If the United States wants to alter the dynamic, it will have to give up its linear approach and play what Joseph Nye describes as “three-dimensional chess.” Until now, Washington has insisted on taking on one crisis at a time, meaning that a pileup of disasters has festered while the White House looked only at the Iran nuclear deal.

That mindset won’t work. It will take far more than a change in Iran to end the Syrian civil war. Same for Yemen.

So, what will work?

First, the United States will have to engage Iran and other bad actors in each of the region’s hot spots. Obama has already expressed the intention of doing so: At his press conference on July 15, he spoke of “[jump-starting] a process to resolve the civil war in Syria” and that “it’s important for [Iran] to be part of that conversation.”

Second, at the same time Washington tries to engage diplomatically with Tehran, it will also need to raise the costs for Iran of continuing to do business in the same bloody way it has across the region. With billions of dollars flowing back into the country after the lifting of sanctions, there’s a risk that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will intensify its expansionist approach and investment in proxy wars. A direct war with Iran isn’t a wise option, but ignoring its machinations has left it free reign to expand its dominion in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The only remaining option is to engage in messy proxy warfare as well, giving sustained military and political backing to anti-Iranian proxies, which will make it expensive for Iran to meddle around the Arab world. This will give the United States a new card in the negotiations to come: It can offer to restrain its proxy militias if Iran does the same.

Third, the United States will face the challenging task of getting its recalcitrant allies onto the same page. In the Syria conflict, that will mean butting heads with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, all of which have poured money into rival rebel factions, allowed a free-for-all in the border zones, and paved the way for the entrenchment of hard-line Islamists within the uprising.”

Finally;today the FP Report has stated that “the publication of a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found only 35 percent of Americans approve of his (Obama) handling of Iran generally, with 52 percent disapproving. Even among Democrats, approval is a lukewarm 59 percent.”

“Our Post-ABC survey finds that 56 percent support and 37 percent oppose a deal lifting economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for the nation agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. But the same poll finds pessimism about whether it will work: Only 6 percent are “very confident” in the deal’s long term success, per Scott Clement. “More than six in 10 Americans say they are ‘not so’ or ‘not at all’ confident that the deal will stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, up slightly since March.”

A separate study released by the Pew Research Center found that people disapprove of the deal, 48 to 38 percent. “Almost 80% of those surveyed by Pew said they already had heard at least something about the nuclear agreement, with about one-third of the public saying they had heard a lot,” the Los Angeles Times David Lauter noted.”

There will be a few more weeks before the agreement becomes a matter of fact and although there may be much pressure against it by perhaps the majority it will be difficult to overturn. I will revisit it when it becomes apparant that the nuclear oportion will not work.

**(http://dpotpourri.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-it-is-bad.html)