Snapback sanctions? Everyone knows that once the international sanctions are lifted, they are never coming back. Moreover, consider the illogic of President Obama’s argument. The theme of his American University speech Wednesday was that the only alternative to what he brought back from Vienna is war because sanctions — even the more severe sanctions that Congress has been demanding — will never deter the Iranians. But if sanctions don’t work, how can you argue that the Iranians will now be deterred from cheating by the threat of . . . sanctions? Snapback sanctions, mind you, that will inevitably be weaker and more loophole-ridden than the existing ones.
And of course, extending the problem with the president's logic, the president said that force can't work to stop Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions--which is why this deal is the only proper thing to do--but if Iran cheats, after 10 years we'll be in a better position to use force (notwithstanding Iran's ability to rebuild their military because of the deal).
In a related subject, Iran is so weak militarily right now because of 35 years of sanctions of one sort of another that have allowed Iran's once-modern arsenal to rot away. But somehow the military balance will be better after Iran can rearm.
Hey, here's another: President Obama said that under the deal, after ten years we'll know more about Iran's nuclear infrastructure in case we have to attack it. But Kerry said we didn't need Iran to confess to their past nuclear weapons programs because our intelligence already knows everything about it. So why do we need a deal to know more about a "frozen" nuclear weapons path?
How did our president become so wise in the ways of diplomacy?
The president talked a lot. But it made no sense.
The amazing thing is, the president really does believe his own bullsh*t, even when it contradicts earlier bullsh*t he just said.
UPDATE: Not on point to this post, but Strategypage has more on the deal as does Walter Russell Mead.