200 Words

The New York Times makes a laudable attempt to describe the Iran nuclear "deal" in 200 words. But because the NYT is always gentle when it reports on the Obama administration (trained hamsters, anyone?) they leave a few salient details out. Let's take a look.  From the Times:

Can Iran keep enriching uranium?
Yes. It can produce a small stock of uranium enriched at low levels — not suitable for a bomb without further processing. This limit lasts 15 years.

Unless, of course, Iran cheats (more on that in a bit). In addition, once 10 years have passed, Iran can begin producing enriched Uranium, and at 15 years, it is unrestrained in its production and can produce multiple nuclear weapons immediately.

Can Iran still make a bomb?
If it abides by the deal, no, for at least a decade. It would not have enough material, or centrifuges running, to make a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in less than a year.

That's a very big IF. Iran has been caught cheating repeated and consistently over many decades. Once a cheat, always a cheat. And Iran is a cheat. The verification regime is extremely weak and worse, any violation in the first 15 months will be buried because the deal must have the appearance of working until Obama leaves the presidency. As a consequence, the assumption that Iran will not cheat is naive at best and delusional in the main.

Will inspectors have access to military facilities?
Inspectors can ask to visit sites of suspected nuclear activity. But the provision is short of “anywhere, anytime,” because the inspectors first need to present evidence.

That's a lot like the police "asking" to enter a criminal's house (full of stolen goods) without a search warrant. How do you think the criminal will respond? Basically, every request for verification will be debated, obfuscated, and delayed. There is NO verification regime in this "deal" that is meaningful—none.

When will sanctions lift?
Major oil and financial sanctions could lift this year if Iran complies with the principal requirements in the deal.

What the NYT doesn't tell us is that as the sanctions lift, Iran will have access to billions of dollars that will enable them to buy missiles and conventional armaments, and support its various terror proxies around the work. We are, in effect, funding Iran's push toward an Islamist Middle East with Iran as the hegemon.

How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat?
It can’t. Iran agreed to provide inspectors more access to its nuclear program and allow investigation of suspicious sites, but there are no guarantees.

"It can't." The NYT admits that it can't!! And yet, all of the above claims are predicated on the assumption that Iran won't cheat. OMG!!!

How long will the deal last?
The deal limits Iran’s enrichment for 15 years. Caps on research and development loosen in about 10 years, but some restrictions will remain for up to 25 years.

Barack Obama and his team of 2s seem incapable of understanding that Islamists are fighting a long war. Iran will cheat and will have a nuclear weapons sooner, rather than later. But even if this president's naive assumptions hold (and they will not hold) very, very bad actors will acquire nuclear weapons. As a consequence, the dark clouds of major war will begin to gather on the day that the democrats allow this president to sustain a veto of a bipartisan congressional NO vote. This deal is a travesty—many Dems know it, but don't have the courage to stop it.

Update:
----------------------
As I've noted in this and other posts, it's highly likely that that puppy dog dems will vote to block an override of Obama's veto of a NO vote on his deal with Iran. Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen comment:

For all the abuse he’s taking, [Senator Chuck] Schumer [who announced he opposes the deal] may actually be protecting the Democratic Party from the real political danger inherent in Obama’s actions. The contempt that the president and John Kerry showed by taking this agreement to the UN before submitting it to Congress and the American people was reckless. They are not only thumbing their noses at the American people and Congress, but they are showing contempt for the primacy of our system of checks and balances and they could be setting up the Democratic party for years of attacks of “you caused this!” every time Iran behaves in a threatening manner.

Should Obama veto a bill blocking the Iran deal and defy the will of Congress, he would once again find himself on the wrong side of public opinion: 61 percent of voters would want a veto overridden. If a veto is sustained solely by Democrats two-thirds of respondents, including a plurality of Democrats say they would blame the Democratic party if Iran got a nuclear weapon or used the money from sanction relief to support terrorist attacks on Israel.

If the deal goes through, the Democrats will own it. Every violation, every threatening move, every terrorist action funded with Iran's sanctions money, every one of the continuing capitulations that Obama and his Team of 2s enact to hold the deal together will owned by the Dems. And further down the road, as the clouds of regional war gather, the darkness that ensues is a result of decisions that are theirs and their alone.

Progressives are often characterized by decisions that may have good intentions, but lousy, often destructive results. This is one of those times—on steriods.

UPDATE (8/25/15):
---------------------------
In recent history, four countries have undergone nuclear disarmament regimes: Libya, South Africa, Sweden and the Ukraine. In every case, those countries submitted to actual "anytime, anywhere" inspections; they destroyed their nuclear materials and their nuclear materials manufacturing capability; they transferred control of existing materials to civilian authorities (IAEA); they moved nuclear personnel to other jobs outside weapons construction.

And the Obama Iran deal? None of those things are required, and therefore, none will be enforced.

The Democrats should reconsider their puppy dog status and stop this travesty. If, in what can only be viewed as profile in cowardice, they do not, the Democrats own the downstream results—and the results will NOT be good.