Pirate's Cove

Who is Harold Brown?

Harold Brown was secretary of defense during the Carter administration and previously led the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and development of the Polaris missile warhead. He also served as U.S. director of Defense Research and Engineering and as secretary of the Air Force.

He’s certainly a smart guy, no doubt about it. Smart enough to recognize that Iran will cheat. But, he doesn’t care

Why accepting the Iran nuclear deal is a no-brainer

My experience as defense secretary during the Iran hostage crisis more than three decades ago tells me that Iran will probably try to circumvent thenuclear deal. My participation in nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviet Union from 1958 through SALT II in the 1970s — during very hot points in the Cold War — reinforces my caution. Yet the United States can only accept or reject the deal, so let me discuss bottom-line pros and cons.

So, he just told us Iran will cheat. That right there should be a major con which should scuttle the deal, because the “snap-backs” for sanctions will never ever happen.

Iran’s nuclear program, its advance suspended during the negotiations, is but two years from a nuclear weapon. That’s an urgent problem demanding immediate attention. Iranian possession of nuclear arms would give other regional powers an irresistible urge to obtain them. The Middle East and Persian Gulf conflicts would escalate. That consideration surely motivated the unicorn-level rarity of a common position among the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and China.

He notes later on that Iran (if they do not cheat) would have to suspend their nuclear weapons operations, for the most part, for 10-15 years. Might not other Middle East nations decide they want to get a jump on Iran and develop their own nuclear weapons program?

Defenders of the deal point out that there are provisions to adequately monitor Iran’s compliance. Opponents note other concerns, including Iran’s ballistic missile program; its misbehavior in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere; its support of terrorists; and its threats and verbal attacks on Israel’s right to exist. These observations, although correct, are irrelevant to the more urgent task of trying to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons by 2017.

Au contraire, they are way more than relevant, when Iran is supporting terrorism and acts that kill American citizens, when they threaten one of America’s key allies. Threatening to “wipe Israel off the map” is rather important, but, blowing it off is not unsurprising, seeing as how Mr. Brown served with Jimmy Carter, a noted ante-Semite and Israel hater, a guy who takes the side of Palestinian terrorists.

Does the agreement decrease pressure on Iran by giving it access to its frozen billions in assets? Yes, but it’s the nature of a deal that adversaries must give up some objectives. We could have devised a more favorable deal, but there would be no chance of an Iranian signature on the document. A “better deal” without an Iranian signature is worthless.

That’s what happens when one negotiates from a position of weakness. And, we barely even get a temporary state of security, since Iran will further fund terrorism in the Middle East.

Failure of U.S. adherence to the deal would not slow but would hasten an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Russians and Chinese would certainly not sustain economic sanctions. Sanctions by the other countries would erode as well. With all of this in mind, approving the agreement is a no-brainer.

The Russians and Chinese will not allow sanctions to snap-back. Nor will the European nations which stand to make a lot of money trading with Iran. Hence, the deal is toothless, and we’ll have to deal with this down the road yet again.

I’ll ask one more time: if this deal was proposed by a Republican, how would Democrats be reacting?