A Nuclear Deal to Die For

Hours ago, Secretary of State John Kerry, with the approval of President Barack Obama, signed a deal with the Iranians that will open wide the door for Iran to regain its superpower status in the Middle East. President Obama was jubilant in yet another effort to establish a legacy for his presidency that places the entire world at risk. In remarks that were broadcast in Iran, he boasted, “This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.”

The “new direction” is to send a signal to all terrorists—including ISIL—that if you can outwait the United States it proves that crime really does pay. It is a clear call that the Obama administration is fearful of the results of standing firm against terrorism and terror states. This is likely the largest terror bonus in American history.

In the inking of this agreement, thousands of victims of 911 have been dishonored. The families of those men and women killed in 2001 were assured that the United States would NOT fund terrorism. Tens of thousands of America’s finest fought in Iraq and died or were injured by Iranian-produced IEDs or at the hands of the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army. How can the Commander-in-Chief now look them in the face?

After White House efforts to conclude the deal, the largest terror network worldwide will be awarded what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called “a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world.” It will also end a European oil embargo that would flood an already oil-glutted economy with even more oil, and will end some financial restrictions on banks in Iran.

The deal can still be blocked by the U.S. Congress, new sanctions can be levied against Iran, or those currently in place can be retained. House and Senate members are not the only ones who oppose this deal: Israel and Sunni Arab nations are highly skeptical of any plan that leaves Iran with the ability to produce the materials necessary for the production of atomic weapons. According to Mr. Netanyahu, this would be a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” In a decade, the deal would expire, leaving Iran with the substructure necessary to produce an atomic bomb.

Iran very reluctantly agreed to a five-year extension of the current U.N. arms embargo, but that, too, could be suspended if the Iranians can pass IAEA inspections. A U.N. curb on the transference of technology relating to ballistic missiles to Iran could stay in place for an additional eight years. Of course, Russia and China cried foul because of the presence of ISIL in the region.

The Iranians also rejected a noteworthy part of the treaty that would permit inspections of military sites. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is adamantly opposed to such intrusion. Therefore, such access is not assured. It appears that the deal is skewed in Iran’s favor before the ink has even dried.

According to the pact, Congress has a sixty-day period in which to review the deal, an evaluation that could go against President Obama. He would, however, still have veto power. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush called it a “dangerous, deeply flawed and short-sighted deal.” Governor Chris Christie said, “I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to put aside politics and act in the national interest. Vote to disapprove this deal in numbers that will override the President’s threatened veto.”

Other Republican presidential candidates were quick to express their contempt for the White House deal. Senator Lindsey Graham called it “akin to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs.” Marco Rubio said it “undermines our national security.”

Governor Mike Huckabee clearly saw the threat against Israel when he tweeted, “Shame on the Obama admin for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’”

In 2007, I wrote The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps. In that book is the following statement:

“Appeasement has been the offshoot of self-loathing. We hate war rather than believe that those who wage war against us are evil. The liberal left believes we are evil by retaliating, or even worse by striking preemptively to prevent danger.  Self-loathing replaces righteous indignation and begets appeasement. The desire to negotiate no matter the cost gives rise to those of the West who unwittingly become cohorts to the jihadists. These individuals rationalize the presence of evil and attacks by terrorists based on their perception of our own past sins.”

The president’s plan is a quid pro quo—a get-out-of-jail card for an appeasement plan that will allow Iran’s leaders to creep out from under the harsh sanctions that brought them to the table in the first place.


Dr. Michael Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His book, See You in New York, is available at


Leave a Reply