Obama Says Only Alternative To A Nuclear Deal With Iran Is War

[Purveyor]

By Greg Jaffe July 15 at 8:29 PM
President Obama’s defense of the complex and painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal that his administration reached with Iran boiled down to a simple, if controversial, contention: The only real alternative to the deal was war.

Obama returned to that conclusion repeatedly Wednesday at a news conference that stretched for more than one hour.

“Without a deal,” he said in his opening statement, “we risk even more war in the Middle East.”


A few minutes later, in response to a reporter’s question, Obama dismissed concerns that majorities in the House and Senate might vote down the deal, forcing him to use his presidential veto. Wouldn’t a rejection of the deal by lawmakers make him question its wisdom?

“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” Obama countered. “Those are — those are the options.”

MORE....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-defense-of-the-iran-deal-comes-with-a-tough-love-message/2015/07/15/a7614b4a-2b04-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

[HassleCat]

1. It might not be a war

Israel would surely bomb Iran when it believed Iran was getting close to having a nuke. They might do it anyway. This could result in war, but probably would not. Obama is correct when he says the choice is a deal or force. Without a deal, Israel would surely bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. If a future Republican president undercuts the deal, that will probably happen.

[Igel]

2. Well, it's good to see he's ended the Iran-US war

that waged for the last dozen years. Listening to him talk, it sounded like he was busy convincing himself.

Meanwhile, I'm sure peace has broken out in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, with no tensions at all in Lebanon or Egypt.

[bananas]

3. Then Obama is wrong.

For one thing, they could continue the inter-rim deal while continuing negotiations.

Also, use of force isn't always war - when Iran signed the NPT, it agreed to UN Security Council resolutions - even if the UN decides to forcibly decommision Iran's facilities - whether through bulldozers or bunker-busters. Iran already agreed to this.

And as others have pointed out, if Israel or the US or Saudi Arabia used force to destroy Iran's military nuclear facilitieswithout a UN Security Council resolution, that would not necessarily result in a war. Iran might retaliate, but that wouldn't constitute a war.