Panetta: Iran deal is bad. Pass it and prepare for war

[Revmitchell]

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admits that the Iran deal is bad, but says it provides an opportunity for the U.S. to become more aggressive in dealing with the Iranian regime.

In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Panetta, a Californian who also served as head of the CIA, says that “the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East.”

Yet President Barack Obama has done the opposite, using the Iran deal as an way to cement Iran as a regional power, in pursuit of what he calls a “new equilibrium.”

Panetta’s argument is for a dramatic shift in Obama’s stance.

He concedes that critics of the Iran deal are right:

In itself, the Iran deal would appear to reward Tehran for defying the world, make funds available for its extremist activities and generally make it stronger militarily and economically. Although the agreement provides for a temporary delay in Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability, it allows Tehran to retain its nuclear infrastructure and obtain sanctions relief. The risk is that Iran could become an even bigger threat to the region.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...or-war/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

[poncho]

At DoD he ran around with his hair practically on fire denouncing cuts to the defense budget in out-sized, apocalyptic terms. The “catastrophic,” “draconian” cuts would initiate a “doomsday mechanism” and “invite aggression,” he claimed and always without specific examples. Ironically, when Panetta was chairman of the House Budget Committee in the early 1990s, he took the exact opposite position and pushed for huge cuts to the defense budget.

For Panetta, principles appear to be determined by wherever he happens to be sitting at any given moment.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/08/leon-panetta-is-what-s-wrong-with-dc.html

 

[church mouse guy]

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admits that the Iran deal is bad, but says it provides an opportunity for the U.S. to become more aggressive in dealing with the Iranian regime.

In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Panetta, a Californian who also served as head of the CIA, says that “the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East.”

Yet President Barack Obama has done the opposite, using the Iran deal as an way to cement Iran as a regional power, in pursuit of what he calls a “new equilibrium.”

Panetta’s argument is for a dramatic shift in Obama’s stance.

He concedes that critics of the Iran deal are right:

In itself, the Iran deal would appear to reward Tehran for defying the world, make funds available for its extremist activities and generally make it stronger militarily and economically. Although the agreement provides for a temporary delay in Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability, it allows Tehran to retain its nuclear infrastructure and obtain sanctions relief. The risk is that Iran could become an even bigger threat to the region.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...or-war/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Apparently a lot of supporters of the deal are admitting that it is not a good deal.

It is possible that the deal will take effect without ever being voted upon in the US Senate. Imagine that, we will start a nuclear war because a third of the US Senate said that they would uphold an Obama veto so that it is not necessary to hold a vote in the US Senate.