A counterpoint to Bret Stephens' editorial from yesterday. Stephens argued that Iran lied (proven by the trove of documents revealed by Israel) and thus we should end the deal. Can Stephens really be that naive? Of course they lied--everyone knew that their nuclear program was for military--perhaps in addition to civilian--uses. No one with any sense took their stated position as truthful. If we thought they were being truthful why did we need a deal in the first place? The fact that they were lying then doesn't mean that anything has changed. We would still like to prevent them from developing a nuclear capability. backing out of the deal would be another stupid foreign policy mistake by an administration fumbling its way towards a more dangerous world.
Debating the Iran Nuclear Deal
No comments:
Post a Comment