I should have written sooner about “the Iran Deal,” which is what the website whitehouse.gov calls what should be called a proposed treaty.

I had thought, what more could I add to what I have been writing and saying since 1987?—that we should nuke Iran; that every day we delay in nuking Iran, its murderous regime gets wealthier and stronger, killing more Americans, more Israelis, and more innocent people around the world and within Iran itself, murdering on a larger and larger scale and faster and faster timetable.

But now, with the imminent prospect of Iran nuking us, a prospect made possible by an American foreign policy so ludicrous that it seems subhuman, I must write again in the hope that even one individual deluded by Leftist evil will come to his senses.

Many in the right-wing media have done a good job of criticizing “the deal,” officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and I refer to some of that commentary below. But to gain a clearer and starker understanding of the absurdity and evil of this deal, one must read the commentary—including the official commentary by the Obama administration—in favor of it.

The usual criticisms of “the deal” make the following good points:

– “The deal” lifts international sanctions, just when Iran was on a precipice because of them, and makes it virtually impossible to reinstate them. This deal thus constitutes the second eleventh-hour bailout by Obama of the Iranian regime, the first bailout occurring when Obama declined to criticize the Iranian regime during anti-regime protests by Iranians in 2011.

– The lifting of sanctions makes more than $100 billion in assets available immediately to Iran, and these assets can be used by Iran to increase its state sponsorship of anti-West terrorism. Keep in mind that the U.S. Department of State, headed by John Kerry, identifies only four “State Sponsors of Terrorism”: Iran, along with Cuba, Sudan, and Syria, all of which receive support from Iran. Also keep in mind that, according to Obama, the annual military spending of Iran is only $30 billion, and so an additional $100+ billion made available to this regime will make a very great and horrible impact.

– “The deal” does not address the continued development by Iran of ballistic missiles, which are the other aspect—along with building the bomb itself—of being able to execute a nuclear attack. The deal also loosens conventional-arms and ballistic-missile embargoes, facilitating the importation by Iran of these weapons from Russia and China.

– “The deal” replaces our former expectation of anywhere, anytime, unimpeded inspections with an 89-day window of delay if Iran uses the delaying tactics baked into the deal. Only known sites can be inspected anytime, but suspected covert sites can be delayed for inspection for up to 89 days. (See Sections 36, 37, and 78 of “the deal,” excerpted and annotated here on the website of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska.)

– The deal gives a free pass to Iran for its complete scoffing of the previous “deal,” the interim agreement made 21 months ago, so that we have no baseline as to where Iran is currently on its nuclear development, and thus no basis to identify future violations.

For an elaboration on these points and more, the following articles are all worth reading:

The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history, by Charles Krauthammer

Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran: Worse than We Could Have Imagined, by Charles Krauthammer

Don’t Try Trusting Iran, by The Editors of National Review

Is the Iran Deal the Worst Political Blunder of All Time?, by Thomas Sowell

The Iran Deal Appeases the Greatest Evil of Our Time, by Dennis Prager

Congress Must Hold Obama Accountable for his Deception Over Iran, by Andrew C. McCarthy

Obama’s Iran Deal Is Still Far from Settled, by Andrew C. McCarthy

Everything You Need to Know About Obama’s Iran Deal,
by Ben Shapiro

Obama’s Iran Deal Is the Opposite of What He Promised the American People, by Fred Fleitz

Speech to Congress on March 3, 2015 by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Bill Whittle has rightly described as “the leader of the free world”.

So that’s the good news. Now let us descend the rungs of hell to examine the thoughts of those who support and who made “the deal.”

The presidential website, whitehouse.gov, has a page entitled “The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon.” On that page is the following passage:

As it stands today, Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create 8 to 10 bombs. If Iran decided to rush to make a bomb without the deal in place, it would take them 2 to 3 months until they had enough weapon-ready uranium (or highly enriched uranium) to build their first nuclear weapon. Left unchecked, that stockpile and that number of centrifuges would grow exponentially, practically guaranteeing that Iran could create a bomb—and create one quickly—if it so chose.

This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2–3 months to 1 year or more if Iran broke its commitments.

That is, the Obama administration, in its watch over the security of the United States for the past six and a half years, has—by its own estimate—allowed the most evil regime in the history of mankind to come to within two months of having a nuclear bomb. Moreover, this deal was formulated two months ago, so Iran presumably now may be a few days away from having the bomb.

This state of affairs—the equivalent of Hitler on the verge of having nukes—is such an epochal failure by the Obama administration, if the administration is indeed on the side of America, as to be reasonable grounds for those responsible to commit suicide. Instead, Obama and Kerry in effect are demanding that America commit suicide.

And what is the upside that this deal promises—if Iran adheres to the deal, which of course Iran will not do—in return for all the benefits that Iran receives from the deal? The “breakout” time will increase from two or three months to a measly year, but with Iran also having a missile delivery system, more money, more conventional weapons, more centrifuges, no danger of renewed international sanctions, etc. Imagine what kind of “new deal” Iran will be able to negotiate after breaking the current one.

One might ask, in such a predicament, shouldn’t we go to war immediately to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb? But war is not an option in the minds of our leaders.

In the “Introduction” to “the Iran Deal” is this opening statement, in italics, by Kerry:

Years ago when I left college, I went to war. And I learned in war the price that is paid when diplomacy fails. And I made a decision that if I ever was lucky enough to be in a position to make a difference, I would try to do so. I believe this agreement actually represents an effort by the United States of America and all of its colleagues in the P5+1 to come together with Iran to avert an inevitability of conflict that would come were we not able to reach agreement. I think that’s what diplomacy was put in place to achieve, and I know that war is the failure of diplomacy and the failure of leaders to make alternative decisions.

That is, if America goes to war against Iran, it is a failure of America, as it was a failure to fight Hitler’s Germany or Imperial Japan.

Now we can begin to see how our leaders “negotiated” such an atrocious “deal.” First, our enemy is two months away from having nukes, because of our leaders’ past lack of resolve; second, these same leaders will never fight; and third, these same leaders are negotiating the deal. Under such conditions, which our enemy well understands, only one kind of “deal” is possible? This deal is America’s surrendering plea for leniency, made to a ruthless enemy.

It gets worse.

On September 2 on the MSNBC television show “Morning Joe, Kerry made this statement, now transcribed on the official Web site of the United States Department of State:

What I can tell you is if we walk away from this agreement, given the suspicions that the supreme leader had about even entering into negotiations with us, we will have proven their worst fears, that you can’t deal with the West, you can’t trust the West, therefore they have to go do what they have to do to protect themselves. And they will get a weapon one way or the other as a result of not accepting this agreement.

This statement by Kerry is a reiteration of an argument he made a month earlier in an interview for The Atlantic. For excellent commentary on Kerry’s interview in The Atlantic, see this article by Robert Tracinski. But I have thoughts to add.

Kerry is not seeking the trust of the murderous Iranian dictator Khamenei in the way a spy seeks the trust of an enemy in order to deceive and thereby defeat the enemy. (That is what Khamenei is doing.) Kerry wants the United States to deliver on all the promises of benefits to Iran in this agreement and any future agreement.

Kerry places the presumption of moral rectitude on the side of the most evil nation in the history of civilization—Iran—and places the presumption of moral disrepute on the side of the most moral nation in the history of civilization: the United States of America. Kerry sees the United States as the nation of sullied reputation, which reputation Kerry must strive to overcome to win the trust of the “supreme leader.”

Kerry refers to Khamenei as “the supreme leader” not to express irony or derision or neutral reporting, but to express respect for what Kerry considers a legitimate title. Respecting the title of “the supreme leader” is precisely equivalent to respecting the title of “the Fuhrer.”

Evidently Kerry thinks that “the supreme leader” will not understand that America has no “supreme leader,” that the American president requires Senate approval of a treaty or Congressional passing of a law, that even the lawless Obama—in calling this treaty an agreement and not a treaty—is not yet a “supreme leader.” Or perhaps Kerry assured “the supreme leader” that Obama has Congress in his pocket and is really just as “good” and “trustworthy” as a “supreme leader”; and if Congress rejects this agreement, the “supreme leader” will realize that he cannot trust Kerry. (In an ironic slap in the face of Kerry, Khamenei now has ordered the Iranian Parliament to vote on the agreement.)

Kerry also presumes that the leaders of Iran seek weapons primarily in order to “protect themselves” from the West, from nations such as the United States and Israel. But Israel does not have nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from the United States and the West. It is only evil regimes that seek such protection. To Kerry, in contrast, it is America that is the morally suspect nation, and Iran that is the innocent party just trying to defend itself.

And so we have it. To our leaders, not only does Iran possess the tactical military high ground in being two months away from having nukes and in being the only side of this conflict willing to fight, but Iran also possesses the moral high ground. The result of these premises is “the deal.”

When Kerry ran for Presdent in 2004, I frequently made this comparison of Kerry to President G.W. Bush: although Bush was a welfare-statist like Kerry, Bush was proud of America, while Kerry was ashamed of America. That shame is evident in Kerry’s statement above. Kerry, with his shame for America, is the perfect villainous complement to Obama, who acts more like an outright foreign enemy to America.

Once again, the political Left, in this case embodied by Obama and Kerry, has taken the side of abject evil against the side of magnificent good. The same phenomenon occurred recently when the Left took the side of Hamas against Israel, and sided with murderous Muslims against cartoonists, and sided with savage rioters in Baltimore against rights-respecting citizens.

As I have written before, “The Left always takes the side of evil because the Left is the side of evil.” The Left—the ideology against individual rights and against the efficacy of the individual reasoning mind—is the origin of every mass murdering regime of the past century, from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to Imperial Japan to Communist China to Castro’s Cuba to North Korea to Saddam’s Iraq to Iran.

The Left in America will always side against America, because America is the least Leftist—that is, the most individualist—nation in history. Similarly, the Left will always side with Islamic dictatorships against Jews and Israel, because Jews and Israel respect individual reason, individual achievement, and (at least to some extent) individual rights.

Not all American Leftists are evil like Obama and Kerry. Some Leftists have been surrounded by other Leftists their whole lives, and have never thought to question their received wisdom regarding which writers to admire and which to deride, which news sources to trust and which to ridicule, which people to consider smart and which stupid. To those Leftists I say, your time to question is about to run out. By accepting Leftist doctrine, you are the instruments by which the Left in America is about to put hundreds of billions of dollars and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of murderers fanatically committed to killing every last American and Israeli. Not only are the lives of innocent millions of people in America and Israel at stake, but so is your very soul. You are about to become like those in Germany who accepted a Hitler. Can your soul ever recover from such an act? Mine could not.