ShareThis Page
Jay Ambrose: Will Trump turn out to be right about Iran deal? |
Featured Commentary

Jay Ambrose: Will Trump turn out to be right about Iran deal?

| Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:53 p.m
Associated Press
In this picture released by an official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends a meeting with government officials Wednesday, May 23, 2018, in Tehran.

So, so many are quick to say President Trump made a horrible error in withdrawing from the 2015 Iranian nuclear accord, and some doubts are understandable even as the definitive harrumph is nonsense.

The fact is, Trump kept pushing Iran to exhibit peaceful intent, it did not and we are therefore in a situation where its continuing evil is ever more a real peril even if unseen by those who do not want to see.

Iran has been moving ahead to build nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated as much with 100,000 hidden Iranian documents that Israel found.

The deal from the start never said “Hey, stop everything.” It just said “Quit doing as much as you were.” It let Iran keep its nuclear infrastructure and keep enriching uranium if not by as much. It said Iran could still shoot off those ballistic missiles, obviously meant to transport nukes someday.

All of these appeasement nods would somehow work out, the Barack Obama team said, because we would build better relations with Iran over time and we’ve got a good inspection regime. According to deal supporters, Iran has majestically lived up to every promise.

False, false and false. Instead of geniality, what we’ve received from Iran is threats to wipe out Israel, the harassment of the U.S. military to the point of taking hostages and a bloody, terroristic presence in the Middle East meant to say Iran would soon be in murderous control. The Iranians have at least a day to prepare for any inspection, and inspectors are denied access to suspect military bases.

President Obama said the only alternative to the weak-kneed deal was war, and some Trump critics have said his abandonment of the deal could send Iran scurrying to get its nukes, something that would now take about a year as compared to maybe three months before the deal. The thing is, some of the other six countries involved in this are making billions through trade with Iran, and for that reason and others, want to keep their part of the deal intact.

So does Iran because, instead of taking returned billions and putting them into its economy, it put them into military buildup and support of terrorism. The economy is collapsing, strikes are happening, outright rebellion could be in the offing and the regime could be in peril without that trade. Because of a return of U.S. financial sanctions, none of this will be nearly as profitable as before, and Iran may just finally decide that it had better heed some of what Trump wants.

Consider that the Obama deal was comparable to President Clinton’s nuke deal with North Korea — all talk, little action — and then consider how Trump’s tough stance is just maybe working with North Korea. Ponder how North Koreans recently released three American prisoners as a prelude to talks while the Iranians released no American prisoners until Obama provided a ransom that he said was not a ransom.

Some good has come out of the Iranian deal,but it was Obama who facilitated the U.S. departure. Contrary to the Constitution, which he promised to “preserve, protect and defend,” he did not get a required treaty that the Senate would have to ratify, but a deal Trump could easily break.

But just maybe improve, too.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.