Sep 30, 2015

Strong and Principled Foreign Policy: Iran

This is the fourth post in a series on strong a principled foreign policy. Please click here for the first, second, and third posts.

The Obama Administration clearly does not share Leader McCarthy’s third principle of foreign policy—that we should stand with our allies and oppose our adversaries—as demonstrated by the Administration’s approach to U.S. relations with Israel and Iran.

Iran refuses to renounce its calls for the destruction of Israel and America, it continues to fund terrorism as it has for a generation, and it deceived the world about its nuclear infrastructure for more than a decade. That’s on top of the fact that our best ally in the region, Israel, is against this deal.

And yet the Obama Administration offered concession after humiliating concession to “achieve” this fundamentally flawed deal.

In his speech to the Hay Initiative, Leader McCarthy explained that he opposes the Iran deal,

“because this agreement fails to achieve what we all want: safety, security, and stability in the Middle East, and across the world. Instead, a nuclear-armed Iran will bring more terror, more war, and more destruction.”

In response to this deal, Leader McCarthy called for a new approach to Iran:

“The global sanctions that kept Iran at bay and brought them to the negotiating table was working, so let’s do what works. Because the President chose not to submit this agreement as a treaty, the next President is not bound by it. The next president can instead take a whole new approach, one based on a position of strength, not endless concessions. Sanctions relief should only be granted when nations abandon a coordinated campaign of violence and terrorism. You don’t induce your enemies into good behavior, you make it too painful to continue their bad behavior.”

As even the President has said, no deal is better than a bad deal, and we know this is a bad deal. Iran is a destabilizing and malign actor, and this deal only exacerbates the problem.