Not True

As the weeks pass and the Iran nuclear negotiations proceed, it's increasingly likely that some agreement will be reached. The question that has existing for months remains—how can the Iranians be trusted regardless of the words written on paper?

Barack Obama, John Kerry and their Team of 2s will announce any agreement (if Iran doesn't walk) with great fanfare, and their media hamsters will trumpet "an historic agreement" regardless of the Swiss Cheese nature of any supposed enforcement mechanisms. In fact, it'll be a lot like the "victory" Obama (via Vladimir Putin) achieved in Syria. Remember when this president told us that Bashar al Assad had given up his chemical weapons, well ...

The New York Times (certainly no enemy of this president) reports:

WASHINGTON — If President Obama hoped that the danger of chemical warfare in the Middle East receded when Syria gave up tons of poison gas, mounting evidence that toxic weapons remain in the strife-torn country could once again force him to decide just how far he is willing to go to enforce his famous “red line.”

The discovery of traces of ricin and sarin in Syria, combined with the use of chlorine as a makeshift weapon in the country’s grinding civil war, undercut what Mr. Obama had viewed as a signal triumph of his foreign policy, the destruction of President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical arsenal.

But Mr. Obama appears no more eager to use military force against Mr. Assad’s government today than he was in 2013 when he abruptly called off a threatened airstrike in exchange for a Russian-brokered agreement in which Syria voluntarily gave up its chemical weapons. Instead, the Obama administration responded to reports of violations this time by seeking renewed assistance from Russia and exploring a new United Nations Security Council resolution addressing Syria’s continued use of chemicals as weapons.

“You’re dealing with a regime that is not very credible on weapons of mass destruction programs,” said Robert Ford, the Obama administration’s former ambassador to Syria. “No one should be surprised the regime didn’t declare all of its facilities. But the bad news in all of this is the regime is using chemical weapons regularly — even if not sarin gas now, they’re using chlorine gas regularly and they are not deterred from doing so.”

My, oh my. Enter into an agreement with a regime that is absolutely, positively, historically and demonstrably "not very credible" and you get screwed. As horrific as the use of WMD is, it's one thing when the screwing is localized as it is with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It's another thing entirely when the future screwing might involve Iranian nuclear weapons that would be far, far from localized.

No worries, though. Obama and his Team of 2s, along with his media hamsters, will assure us that an Iranian agreement (if one does come to pass) is airtight—until it isn't. After all, Iran is absolutely, positively, historically and demonstrably credible ... oh wait, that's absolutely, positively, historically and demonstrably not true.

Update:
--------------------
We learn from Fox News (one of the few outlets that is carrying this story) that Bashar al Assad is using deadly chlorine gas, and that chlorine gas was (surprise!) not part of the chemical weapons agreement that Putin brokered for Obama. Here's a summary from Fox:

“President Obama does not appear to be drawing any more red lines with Syria’s Bashar Assad amid allegations that his regime has returned to using chemical weapons… On Thursday, Obama asserted that it has been verified that the regime already gave up its chemical weapons. However, chlorine gas – which Assad’s government is now accused of using -- was not a part of that agreement. Obama gave a nuanced response Thursday, noting that chlorine isn't an internationally banned chemical weapon. However, he said, ‘when it is used in this fashion, [it] can be considered a prohibited use of that particular chemical. And so we're working with the international community to investigate that. Last week, others in Obama’s administration called for an immediate U.N. investigation into the ‘abhorrent acts’ – without saying what, if any, punishment Assad might face if formally blamed for the string of alleged chlorine gas attacks.”

So ... if in a few years hence, Iran finds a loophole in the assuredly weak nuclear arms agreement that Obama is pushing the country into, we'll get a nuanced response from ... oh wait, Obama will no longer be president. The response will fall to Hillary Clinton (should she get the 2016 nomination and win) who, I suspect, will be even more feckless that her predecessor. Or a Republican president who will be left to clean up the mess, under the harsh criticism of the media and the Democrats.

By the way, what does Hillary have to say about the projected Iran agreement and the Middle East nuclear arms race that it will precipitate. Oops, forgot. She isn't answering any questions just yet.