JCPOA | First One Through

In 2014, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions were racing ahead and its terror proxies were destabilizing the region, the Obama administration was more focused on insulting allies than confronting adversaries. A senior official in the White House dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit,” claiming he lacked the guts to take military action against Iran. At the time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were furiously trying to finalize a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic—one they claimed would block Iran’s path to a bomb.

They couldn’t have been more wrong.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It left the centrifuges spinning, allowed weapons research to continue under the radar, and set an expiration date that kicked the can just long enough to get Obama through his second term. Worse, the deal pumped billions into Iran’s economy, fueling the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to militias in Yemen and Syria, and of course Hamas in Gaza.

Today, a decade later, Iran is sitting on enough enriched uranium for multiple nuclear weapons and is acquiring advanced missile technology from China. The nuclear threshold Obama promised to prevent has not only been crossed—it’s being fortified.

At the same time in 2014-5, Kerry was floundering with the Palestinians. He insisted in 2016 that “there will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world.” That statement aged poorly. Under President Trump, the Abraham Accords blew apart that diplomatic orthodoxy, normalizing relations between Israel and multiple Arab nations—without Palestinian involvement. It turns out peace was possible, just not with failed ideas and appeasement-driven diplomacy.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, never wavered in identifying Iran as the central threat. In a 2021 interview, he reflected on the Jewish people’s tragic history of failing to recognize danger in time. He saw what others refused to acknowledge—and acted.

*Benjamin Netanyahu in interview with Gadi Taub*

The legacy of Obama and Kerry is one of missed opportunities, emboldened enemies, and childish fantasies. The consequences are now unavoidable—and the man they mocked is the one who understood the moment all along.

Denied No More (September 2020)

John Kerry: The Declaration and Observations of a Failure (December 2016)

Half Standards: Gun Control and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal (September 2015)

The Joys of Iranian Pistachios and Caviar (July 2015)

“Double standards” is defined as “a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another.” Double Standards are typically viewed as unjust, and some countries (like the government of Israel) complain when they are held to more rigorous standards of behavior than its neighbors by political bodies like the United Nations. Curiously, in 2015, some US Democratic candidates for president have introduced a new concept of “Half Standards,” in which they actively and happily pursue policies for other countries which are much less rigorous than they expect for Americans.

Democrats on Gun Control for Americans

After the killing of two journalists on air in August 2015, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders stated that he would introduce “constructive gun control legislation which most significantly gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.” Similarly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented that she is in favor of “reform that keeps weapons out of the hands that should not have them.”

Such calls for gun control is not without controversy, as most Americans view the right to bear arms as a fundamental right laid out in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights that “shall not be infringed.” How can the government decide that there are parties that “should not have them [guns]?” Will the government take steps to block certain individuals from this right the way that it blocks felons from voting?

Who “should not have them“? Clinton called out “domestic abusers, the violently unstable” as targets who would lose the right to bear arms. Will the US courts create a system of defining such individuals?

What exactly will these “bad” people be prevented from owning? In their call for new gun legislation, how far will the ownership limitations go? Will a domestic abuser be restricted from purchasing a new gun or will they also need to forfeit guns they currently own? What about ammunition? If a person has factories that make guns and ammo, would they be forced to sell it? If they ran a mine that sourced all of the raw materials to make guns or ammunition, would they be forced to shut it down? In short, would a “violently unstable” person be allowed to own and run an entire gun manufacturing infrastructure and warehouse even if they promised to give up having a gun in their home?

Contrast these Democrats’ positions about barring certain Americans from owning guns, with their positions on Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

Democrats Supporting the Iranian JCPOA

Clinton gave a strong defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran on September 9, 2015, even while she noted the many short-comings of the JCPOA.

Hillary Clinton at the Brookings Institute discussing her support of the JCPOA
September 9, 2015

Iran is a “violently unstable” player: The US State Department has long considered the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a supporter of terrorism, one of only three countries with such designation. The Iranian government has been hostile to America since 1979 and continues to call for the “Death of America”.

…and will remain a “violently unstable” player: Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made clear in several interviews, that “this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior”. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime should be an integral part of a timetable of sanctions relief to the Iranians, the Obama administration made clear that such notion would not be part of any Plan Of Action.

Iran “should not have them (WMDs)”: US President Barack Obama repeatedly stated that the Iranian regime should never be armed with weapons of mass destruction. He has tried to convince Americans that the JCPOA will keep Iran from actually being in possession of such nuclear weapons, and Clinton and Sanders agree that the JCPOA would accomplish such task.

…but will maintain the entire food chain of processing WMDs: While Iran would technically not have a nuclear bomb IF it adheres to everything in the JCPOA, it will continue to have everything required to manufacture and deliver such weapons:

Uranium mines left untouched
It maintains a stockpile of uranium
Thousands of centrifuges (6,104 by the White House count) for enrichment left intact
Heavy-water nuclear plant Arak is “redesigned” but not dismantled
Enrichment facilities of Natanz and Fordow will both remain operational
Obtain new short- and long-range ballistic missiles (available in 5 to 8 years)

Iranian Nuclear Infrastructure
(from BBC website)

Would Clinton and Sanders enable “violently unstable” Americans that have a constitutional right to bear arms, keep an entire weapons making assembly line? Why do they promote a “half standard” for a “violently unstable” country to maintain a vast nuclear weapons infrastructure?