John Bolton: Obama’s Iran Deal Will Lead To War

Mr. Obama has been running around using his typical type strawman, namely that we have a choice between this really bad deal that gives the house away to Iran or war. Former Ambassador John Bolton writes in the LA Times that the deal actually makes war with Iran more likely

President Obama has made an art form of attacking his opponents rather than substantively defending his own policies, most recently regarding the Vienna agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. Essentially, Obama argues that we must either accept his wretched deal or go to war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

As is typical, Obama posits the wrong choice, apparently to distract from the unpleasant reality that the agreement won’t work. It will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So the real choice we are faced with is dealing with the consequences of military action or the consequences of a nuclear Iran. Neither is palatable, but the latter is far worse. If the real objective is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, preemptive military action is now inescapable.

Obviously, we all hope not. But, as Mr. Bolton notes, Iran has been cheating and blowing off sanctions for 30 years. What makes anyone think they will stop now? And, this “deal” only limits them for 8-10 years, at which point they can immediately resume all overt attempts to develop a nuclear weapon. What do we do when it is abundantly clear that they are developing a nuclear weapon, that they are close, and/or have already built them? Throw up our hands? Obama will be long out of office at that point. Will he blame himself? Will Democrats blame themselves, at least those who back this deal?

And, again, Liberals need to ask themselves: if this deal came from a Republican administration, would they be backing it, or would they look and say “holy cow, this a bad deal!”?

Some critics of Obama’s plan advocate scuttling the deal and increasing economic sanctions against Iran instead. They are dreaming. Iran and the United States’ negotiating partners have already signed the accords and are straining at their leashes to implement them. There will be no other “better deal.” Arguments about what Obama squandered or surrendered along the way are therefore fruitless. As for sanctions, they were already too weak to prevent Iran’s progress toward the bomb, and they will not be reset now. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, “These sanctions are going boys, and they ain’t coming back.”

That point stands on its own.

If diplomacy and sanctions have failed to stop Iran, diplomacy alone will fail worse. Like it or not, we now face this unpleasant reality: Iran probably will violate the deal; it may not be detected doing so and if detected, it will not be deterred by “snapback” sanctions. So we return to the hard question: Are we prepared to do what will be necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

Will we have the willpower? Will the “international community” of which Obama speaks so much about?

American weakness has brought us to this difficult moment. While we obsessed about its economic discomfort, Iran wore its duress with pride. It was never an even match. We now have to rely on a tiny ally to do the job for us. But unless we are ready to accept a nuclear Iran (and, in relatively short order, several other nuclear Middle Eastern states), get ready. The easy ways out disappeared long ago.

Obama had long talked about having discussions with Iran with no preconditions. Well, Iran had lots of conditions, and they won. Make sure to read the entire piece in full.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “John Bolton: Obama’s Iran Deal Will Lead To War”

  1. john says:

    Iran long ago offered to stop all atomic bomb work if Israel also disarmed. They refused.
    Even Iran’s enemy Saudi Arabia has approved this deal.
    The whole of Bush’s Coalition of the Willing approves this deal
    Only one country the same country that DID introduce nuclear weapons into the Mideast opposes this deal
    What are the alternatives to this deal
    well WAR!! and no it will not be just bombing it will be all out war
    Sanctions?? China and Russia are already through with sanctions and the euros are also fed up with them
    and remember about “boots on the ground” 50% of combat deployed now claim permanent disability when they leave our military. Exactly how many do you want to render disabled?
    War is NOT like a Tom Clancy book

  2. david7134 says:

    There is some much wrong with your statement and assumptions that it hurts, just like all your other post.

    What evidence do you have that Iran offered to not develop weapons??? What measures were offered to check there elimination of research???

    Then you site Bush??? You hate Bush and all his judgment calls except when it is parallel with yours. I don’t care for anything that Bush did, as I have said before, his two talents were that he was not Kerry and he was not Gore, thank God.

    I don’t think that Europe is so stressed that they have to have economic input from Iran, can you back up that claim.

    Then you go on about military disability, a subject for which you have no knowledge whatsoever, even if you are disabled yourself.

    John- get an education, read, learn about the world. Don’t be ignorant all your life and don’t continually demonstrate that ignorance.

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    John- get an education, read, learn about the world. Don’t be ignorant all your life and don’t continually demonstrate that ignorance.

    Hes a troll…he just throws stuff out there and hope something sticks and his stated goal is to make the hosts blood boil…….even his own words proclaim him a troll.

  4. jl says:

    John, sorry, but only somebody with a complete lack of perspective could write “Iran long ago offered to stop all atomic bomb work if Israel also disarmed.” Israel is surrounded by countries that want them off the face of the earth. If Iran disarmed, there’s still hostile countries within a few miles of their border, something somebody with an IQ higher than a liberal could see. Maybe an analogy would help our John. You’re in an alley, and a guy with a gun confronts you. You also have a gun. The bad guy says if you put down your gun, I’ll put down mine. However, you notice that about 5 more bad guys with knives have surrounded you as this is going on. They obviously also want to do you harm. John, if that were you, would you put down your gun?

  5. Liam Thomas says:


    Progressives hate/loathe and despise Israel. They want them off the face of the earth as well.

    Why Jews in this country continue to support the Democrats is mind blowing but I surmise its somewhere along the lines that the rights got their backs so they are BUYING the lefts votes.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Conservatives hate Jews but love Israel. Go figure.

    John Bolton? lol. If he were in charge we’d invade Iran yesterday.

  7. jl says:

    “Conservatives hate Jews but love Israel.” Liberals hate Israel but love Jews. Go figure.

  8. Jeffery says:

    The only surprise would be if John Bolton hadn’t called for invasion…

    Like most conservatives, he’s eager to send young men to die to help him prove his own manhood. Bolton claimed bombing Iran would set their nuclear ambitions back as much as 3 to 5 years! That way he could bomb them again sooner rather than having to wait 10 to 15 years. And how right were Bolton et al about Iraq? Oh, wrong at every turn? Why would anyone listen him? Michael Bolten has better ideas.

  9. jl says:

    Nice try, J, but the equivalence between Iran and Iraq doesn’t work, as Iraq was not nuclear, while Iran is/will be. Israel took care Iraq’s nuclear ambitions with a bombing raid, and they “didn’t send young men to die to prove their manhood”. In fact, they lost no one. Obama would do well to look to Israel to shore up his manhood.

Pirate's Cove