Dershowitz has a few words for Obama

Michael L.

Writing at the Gatestone Institute, Alan Dershowitz tells us that President of the United States, Barack Obama, needs to answer a few very basic questions concerning the Iran deal, as pointed out by Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu.  Dershowitz writes:

His new proposal is that "If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires." His argument is that without such a precondition, the ten-year sunset provision paves, rather than blocks, the way to an Iranian nuclear arsenal, even if Iran were to continue to export terrorism, to bully nations in the region and to call for the extermination of Israel.

With logic that seems unassailable, Netanyahu has said that the alternative to this bad deal is not war, but rather "a better deal that Israel and its neighbors might not like, but which we could live with, literally." Netanyahu then outlined his condition for a better deal: namely that before the sun is allowed to set on prohibiting Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the mullahs must first meet three conditions: stop exporting terrorism, stop intruding in the affairs of other countries, and stop threatening the existence of Israel.

Obama seems perfectly content to see an Islamist state gain the ultimate weaponry within, at most, ten years, no matter how they behave between now and then.

Netanyahu's alternative is commonsensical.

All he is saying is the we should maintain sanctions, and measures, necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry unless, or until, they cease aggression toward their neighbors.

It could not be more obvious.

The potential marriage of political Islam with nuclear weaponry is simply unacceptable to anyone who values the lives of their children.

Obama may want a deal in order to burnish his legacy, but it will not be a legacy to be proud of if Iran gets the bomb sometime shortly after Obama leaves office.

We have an absolute obligation, it seems to me, to do whatever we can do to encourage Congress to not go along with The Bad Deal unless Obama modifies it.

The alternative to The Bad Deal is not war.  The alternative to is a better deal.

Netayahu is correct and his criticisms are right on the nose.

The Administration must now answer one fundamental question: Why would you allow the Iranian regime to develop nuclear weapons in ten years, if at that time they were still exporting terrorism, bullying their Arab neighbors and threatening to exterminate Israel? Why not, at the very least, condition any "sunset" provision on a change in the actions of this criminal regime? The answer may be that we can't get them to agree to this condition. If that is the case, then this is indeed a bad deal that is worse than no deal.

Hardly a day goes by in which I am not disgusted and horrified at Obama administration foreign policy.

How in G-d's name is it in the interests of the American people - not to mention people the world over - to see an Islamist regime with nukes?