Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Define "Dramatically"

This is an administration's defense of their sanctions plans regarding Iran?

The officials also claimed that most of the sanctions, including multilateral sanctions, could be snapped back into place if Iran cheated, and they argued that giving Iran tens of billions of dollars in cash won’t dramatically increase Iran’s spending on terrorism and other nefarious activities.

Pray tell? What level of increase in "spending on terrorism and other nefarious activities" would they consider dramatic? Twenty percent? Fifty? Would it have to double to be dramatic?

What is the legal analysis on how many more lives lost due to non-dramatic increases in Iran's sponsorship of "terrorism and other nefarious activities" is acceptable collateral damage?

When Iran's Syria intervention may be costing Tehran $2 billion per month (I think the Iraq War eventually cost our far larger economy $8 billion per month during peak fighting periods), why would we reduce this massive strain on Iran's limited resources?

Yet more importantly, why would our new post-agreement bestest buddy-for-life partner Iran even be interested in sponsoring "terrorism and other nefarious activities?"

Are the Iranians that immune to the soothing balms of hope and change?

Do our officials even listen to themselves and how they sound?

Because our Arab Gulf allies are listening, and have pucker factors red-lining as they hear us speak of Iran as a partner.

Is the White House that deluded?

Or would administration officials just say they aren't dramatically deluded?

UPDATE: I'm sure that in the end the administration will settle for China and Russia not having a dramatically increased ability to issue a Security Council veto:

Washington wants to be certain that any nuclear deal between Iran and major powers includes the possibility of restoring U.N. sanctions if Tehran breaks the agreement without risking Russian and Chinese vetoes, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

While the ability of Congress to stand in the way of President Obama's pen and phone is questionable, I wonder if the UN route has been poisoned by President Obama who tricked Russia into not vetoing a UN Security Council "no fly zone" humanitarian resolution on Libya that President Obama then twisted into a regime change campaign that eventually made NATO the Libyan rebel air force.