President Obama made a statement on Saturday, December 7th, that ". . . a comprehensive diplomatic deal to end Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is as likely to fail as succeed." Well, that doesn't necessarily sound like good foreign policy as much as a political move. To a political extreme, Obama may actually mean, "Let's try to cut a deal with Iran so when inevitable war breaks out we can just blame it on the war mongering Republican party who was not in favor of the deal since its origins." If Iran happens to abide by the deal, the Democratic party will look like they accomplished something in favor of Israel and foreign diplomacy. Reports came in that the deal would freeze Iran's nuclear program; the deal doesn't even completely end Iran's uranium activity, it simply puts a cap on what they are "allowed" to enrich. In the past, Iran has not typically been willing to abide by a Western deal in favor of Israel and the United States. Let's not look past the fact that the only reason Iran has "agreed" to this deal is because of its promised sanctions relief - a legal, political bribe. How long can the United Nations keep paying out Iran until the Iranian government decides they want more money than the U.N will be willing to hand out? Also, with the obvious condemnation from Israel, is it acceptable for the United Nations to pay sanctions to a country with only approval from six nations, none of which will be most significantly effected by the deal as Israel? This deal is being made with the face of the United States but, with President Obama's support, it is ultimately being decided through the United Nations. This deal has seemingly left the public with more questions than answers and more doubt on the competence of our foreign relations and diplomacy.
Thank you for taking the time to read my posts; your opinions and feedback are appreciated.