Stop Iran Deal Says....Howard Dean?

by JASmius



I'll say this for him: Either the ex-Vermont governor is a lot braver than we ever imagined, or he's as crazy as we always suspected:

Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday he would like to see the United States walk away from the negotiating table with Iran over its nuclear program.

During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Dean was asked about his opinion on the ongoing talks that were extended by at least a day into Wednesday.

"I think John Kerry and Barack Obama are far, far too eager for a deal with Iran, and could actually get a better deal if they walked away from the table and possibly came back later," host Joe Scarborough said. "Why am I wrong, Howard?"

Well, funny you should ask, Joe.  You're wrong because the only "deal" worth inking is the mullahs unconditional surrender, which they will never offer.  Which makes the past dozen years of endless circle-jerking "negotiations" a complete waste of time, time that the mullahs have used to both strengthen their conventional defenses and build their nuclear arsenal.  In fact, you'll know when they're ready to nuke us and our allies, because they'll walk away from the table and deliver their ultimatum and demand for OUR unconditional surrender.

Which is to say, Scarborough's question proceeds from a false assumption.  And so does Dr. Demented's answer:

Dean seemed to surprise Scarborough with his answer.

"I actually think you're right about that," Dean said. "I think the United States is negotiating from a much stronger position than we were four years ago.

See what I mean?

And the reason for that is [Iranian officials] are desperate to get rid of the sanctions.

They could give a frog's fat leg about the sanctions.  All they care about is their nukes.;

It reminded me of a New York real estate person: You come in at the closing and you say, 'I'll take another 10,000 or else.' At the closing, right?"...

Dean said he is "worried" about the status of the discussions.

"I think Obama is right to try to get a deal....

Which he can't get because the more desperate O becomes for an agreement, the more outrageous concessions he makes, and the less incentive the mullahs have to do anything except drive an even harder bargain and make ever more outrageous demands.  There is such a thing as aggressive coercion in diplomacy, after all.  Which, in turn, illustrates that from the White House perspective, this isn't at all about disarming the mullahs and everything about getting The One is Chamberlainian piece of paper, no matter how many millions of American and European and Israeli lives it costs.

....[but] I'm worried about the way these negotiations have gone, and I think Joe was right, probably step away from the table say, 'OK, you're not backing off on sending you the uranium to Russia, and we'll get rid of the sanctions at our own pace.' I agree," Dean said.

It isn't that Dean isn't still grievously wrong about this; it's that there seems to almost be three sides to this issue now - correction, four: (1) The right side - break off these ridiculous talks and give the mullahs an ultimatum: Give up your nukes or die; (2) the GOP side - stop making outrageous concessions, be willing to walk away, but reimpose ineffective economic sanctions instead of taking direct action, which is the only way the mullahs will ever be disarmed; (3) the (for lack of a better term) "mainstream" Democrat side, more or less expressed by Chairman How; and (4) the Iranian side, personified by Barack Hussein Obama.

If "YEEEEAAARRRRGH" is worried, that sounds like at least a DEFCON-2 level of justifiable fear for the rest of us.