Tancredo: Iran Deal ‘Flirting With Treason’

Far-right demagogue Tom Tancredo doesn’t like the deal with Iran one bit. Showing no evidence at all that he’s even seen the deal and making not a single specific argument, he offers up the familiar Republican talking points, adding that he thinks Obama is “flirting with treason” by making the deal.

President Obama has announced a “deal” with the government of Iran that allows the mullahs openly dedicated to our destruction to proceed on their path to develop nuclear weapons. No one is really surprised by the sellout, as it follows a long train of pro-Islamic policies and a willful blindness to Iran’s jihadist activities and ambitions.

The jihadist gun is loaded and pointed at our head, and soon those bullets will be nuclear warheads. Yet, none dare call it treason.

We are told the details of the Iran agreement are not yet final, but what is known amounts to a total capitulation to Iran’s nuclear plans. The terms offer only small concessions on Iran’s nuclear timetable coupled with an inadequate program of inspections to verify compliance with its promises.

If this had been a game of poker, John Kerry and the team of U.S. negotiators would be leaving Geneva not only with an empty wallet but without their shoes and pants. But they would still carry a sign declaring victory. That’s the Obama way.

The truth about this sellout is that Congress and everyone else saw it coming and did nothing to stop it. Obama’s commitment to reaching a deal at any price was well documented.

I doubt he’s even read the bill. He does not mention even one single actual provision in it. Not one. This could have been, and quite possibly was, written months ago. It didn’t matter what the deal actually says, the right was going to have the same response. That response was predetermined and bears no connection to reality. Non-proliferation experts from both right and left have praised the deal as being very close to what they would design as the ideal such agreement.

That disconnection with the actual details reveals the central truth that it simply never mattered what was in the deal, they were going to say the same thing. The talking points were circulated months ago and nothing in the agreement was even hypothetically going to alter them. Because the truth simply doesn’t matter to them, only gaining a partisan advantage does.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Artor

    I dunno. That Treason girl is pretty cute. Her milkshakes bring all the boys a-runnin’ to her yard. Tom Cotton & his gang seem to like her a lot too.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … none dare call it treason.

    A classic literary allusion there – Tancredo’s scholarship matches his geopolitical acumen!

    Perhaps some of his confrères on the rabid right might object to be called “none” – but I suspect they’ll forgive anything so long as it doesn’t give aid or comfort to Obama or librullz.

  • tbp1

    You’re right, of course. The treaty could contain exactly what Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove had advocated the day before and the entire right wing would have precisely the same reaction they are having now.

    I’ve said before that the President could come out in favor of ice cream, and Fox News would say he had declared war on the lactose intolerant.

  • raven

    It remains to be seen how much of a “partisan advantage” opposing an Iran deal is.

    1. We are suffering from Vietnam War syndrome. After spending 2 trillion dollars and a lot of lives in Iraq, we have nothing to show for it but an ongoing mess.

    That tends to make most people wary of doing it again.

    2. It seems to take a generation for Vietnam War syndrome to wear off. People just forget what its like to fight pointless wars that cost money we don’t have and end up with a lot of dead and wounded soldiers. Those American soldiers are someones son, brother, husband, friend, relative, neighbor.

    3. I’m guessing here based on logic, always a risky way to guess. That the American people don’t want another huge war in the middle east for no particular reason.

    I could be wrong. It would be better if there was some data, polling data etc..

  • busterggi

    Know who did deal with Iran, sold them weapons and was supported by them in his bid for POTUS?

    hint – it wasn’t Hitler.

  • colnago80

    Re Pierce R. Butler @ #2

    Title of a book by the nutcase John Stormer. One of the “classic” anti-communist tomes of the 1950s and 1960s. Between Cleon Skousen’s, The Naked Communist, and Australian (how about that dingo?) author Fred C. Schwarz’s, You Can Trust the Communists (to do Just as they Say, part of the hat trick of wingnuttery.

  • raven

    I grew up during the Vietnam war and knew people killed over there. It was a traumatic time.

    1. It is very difficult if the government goes to war big time, for people to stop it.

    Vietnam was deeply unpopular and got more so as 55,000 dead bodies came back to the USA.

    2. Johnson knew it and eventually realized he wasn’t going to win another election. Nixon was elected on a secret plan to end the war. There wasn’t one. He just said we won and pulled out. Saigon fell shortly afterwards.

    3. Which means if the GOP wins the next presidential election, they can start a war with Iran and no one can stop them. Even if the majority of the American people oppose it. It will take 4 years and another election.

    Oh well. I’ve seen this movie twice already. It doesn’t end well. And where are we going to get the 4 or5 trillion dollars to level Iran? We don’t have it unless they raise taxes or put it on the national debt, already 18 trillion.

  • John Pieret

    He does not mention even one single actual provision in it.

    Yes he does … the most important provision of all! The signature line.

  • raven

    This is BTW how wars start.

    Beat the drums of war. Make up some pretext i.e. Gulf of Tonkin or Weapons of Mass Destruction. Go in small. Escalate. Say you see the light at the end of the tunnel. Declare you won and go home. Accomplishing nothing.

    It’s what happened in Vietnam and Iraq.

  • dingojack

    SLC – when it comes to idiocy — of course, we bow to your far superior skills in the field.

    @@ Dingo

  • fusilier

    Yes, there was such a book, but it was based on a XVIth Century quote:

    Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

    –Sir John Harrington

    IOW, The Founding Fathers were Patriots, since they won.

    fusilier

    James 2:24

  • gshelley

    I think we know that the only level of enriched uranium they will accept is 0%, and the only acceptable number of centrifuges is zero, but someone ought to challenge these people and ask them what sort of inspection regime they would find acceptable. I doubt they would come up with anything significantly more stringent than the one proposed.

  • dugglebogey

    What are the odds that this was actually written weeks, if not months ago? It easily could have been.

    I especially like the appeal to “everyone knows” when nobody knows it.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    colnago80 @ # 6 – Quite so, though surely Tancredo’s bookshelf also includes J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit and possibly some Wm. F. Buckley as well.

    fusilier @ # 11 – An online hunt for “Sir John Harrington” comes up with, mostly, accolades for inventing (a precursor of) the flush toilet. So far I haven’t found anything to explain exactly what “treason” he kvetched about, but the British politics of his time (1561-1612), what with all those Tudor & Stuart monkeyshines, offered endless opportunities to opine on such mischief.

    gshelley @ # 12: … ask them what sort of inspection regime they would find acceptable.

    Some of that crowd have spent a great deal of time working up maximum-surveillance state schemes, which they seem to have implemented both here and in Iran without bothering to negotiate any details with Tehran.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Raven, after 150 years all those graveyards are just memorials to Our Glorious Cause and the current-day Patriots are rarin’ to go back for another try.

  • eric

    @9: I think you’re giving the opponents more credit than they deserve. This is mostly political posturing and maneuvering. There may be a few tea party types that would actually consider going to war with Iran over it, but not folk like Tancredo; he’s just playing party politics. Its mostly bluster.

  • brucegee1962

    Actually, I think that America NOT having the will to go to war with Iran may almost be as bad as actually HAVING the will to go to war.

    It looks as if the Republicans are so determined to scuttle this disarmament deal that they will go ahead and do so, on the assumption that a war is the next obvious alternative, not noticing that there is zero support for doing it the way it would need to be done (a full invasion), or caring that even if there was a full invasion, it would inevitably be another fiasco.

    Instead, what we would likely end up is something half-assed — probably a big old Israeli/US airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities that would accomplish squat, other than to delay the program for a couple of years while justifying Iranian paranoia and convincing them that the ONLY way to guarantee their own security is to build nukes.

    Just as with the health care debate, the main point they want to make is that everything Obama does is wrong — the fact that they have no workable alternative plan whatsoever is something they seem cheerfully oblivious to. But obviously the stakes are far higher this time.

  • raven

    @9: I think you’re giving the opponents more credit than they deserve.

    1. I hope you are right.

    2. Don’t forget though that there are Neocons influential in the GOP that have never seen a potential war they didn’t like.

    3. There is always a propaganda buildup to a war that can take years. I’ve seen it twice and everyone has seen it at least once. Iran is looking eerily similar.

    4. As a Boomer, seems like the USA has been at war most of my life. It wouldn’t surprise me if it ends up being for my entire life.

    PS What most people have forgotten. If we threaten Iran with war and actually attack them, We make developing a nuclear bomb not an option but a necessity.

    If the world’s last superpower stumbles around like a decorticated frog and threatens to level someone for no particular reason, what other choice do they have?

  • k_machine

    The biggest problem with this treaty is that the US is a part of it. The US has never signed a treaty they didn’t wipe their butt with. So the US will torpedo the deal and then blame Iran for it.

  • colnago80

    Re schweinhund @ #10

    Yawn.

  • colnago80

    Re brucegee1962 @ #17

    A half dozen well targeted 15 megaton bombs would set Iran’s nuclear program back a lot more then 2 years.

  • colnago80

    Re raven @ #18

    For example, John Bolton and Joshua Muravchik have already written opeds in the NY Times and the Washington Post respectively beating the war drums.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Colnago’s robotic support of an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran is as lazy and thoughtless as it is childish. He knows how mentally bankrupt, morally retarded and downright brainless his ideas are, and he’s not even bothering to make any of it sound sensible or convincing.

    And when I offer a REAL alternative solution, like a bilateral nuclear-disarmament treaty between Iran and Israel, the chickenhawk just shuts right up and has nothing more to say. That shows how little he really cares about the real people and problems involved here.

  • Al Dente

    raven @7

    Nixon was elected on a secret plan to end the war. There wasn’t one. He just said we won and pulled out. Saigon fell shortly afterwards.

    You’re forgetting that Nixon became Maximum Leader in 1969 but the war didn’t end until 1975.

  • raven

    vox. com:

    Cotton has argued American policy in Iran should be “regime change.” Netanyahu’s vision of a “better deal” depends on Iran being so beaten-down by sanctions that it’s essentially willing to give up everything to see them relaxed.

    Obama thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. His view, laid out very clearly at a Thursday press conference, is that war is the only actual alternative to his deal that could prevent Iran from going nuclear.

    1. I wouldn’t be too cheerful about the GOP just saber rattling for votes and show.

    2. A lot of their leaders, Cotton, Cruz, Rubio etc.. seem to be tugging at their leashes for a war.

    3. When has the USA ever stopped anyone from getting a nuclear weapon if they wanted one? Never.

    Even the North Koreans, Pakistan, and South Africa just ignored everyone and went ahead.

    4. The Iran US war is probably going to be a much larger one than the last two. Iran is 6.8 times the size of the UK. It has 79 million people about the same as Germany. The terrain is mountainous.

    I’m estimating $4 trillion to level them. And then what? We now occupy a large country with 78 million people (79 million – 1 million dead) who absolutely hate us for good reasons. Plus every Moslem kid who wants to be a jihadi and kill American soldiers.

    Far as I can see, this would make the first 15 years of the 21st century look like a picnic compared to the next 15 years.

  • eric

    And when I offer a REAL alternative solution, like a bilateral nuclear-disarmament treaty between Iran and Israel…

    This is not a real alternative solution. Whether one believes Israel’s existential fears of a massive Arab attack are real or not, they certainly seem to believe a nuclear deterrent is necessary. Without some radical and unexpected change in geopolitics, it is utterly unrealistic to believe Israel’s nukes are (or would ever be) on the bargaining table at all. The only even vague possibility I see is if Israel thought their stockpile was growing unsafe/unusuable due to age; if that became the case, then without admitting it to be true they might use their stockpile as a bargaining chip because doing that effectively costs them nothing.

    But then again, I don’t think Israel’s nukes need to be on the table to reach a workable agreement. Recent events being an example.

  • jnorris

    Whoa thar gshelley @12 : enriched uranium, 0%, and centrifuges? That’s too darn sciencianist for the Tea Party. Tone it down for them pre-home-skulors.

  • felidae

    Tancredo’s rant sounds like it came from a right wing Obama rant generator–just enter Obama and the rest comes poring out….weak, traitor, ill-advised, dangerous, incompetent, tragic, inadequate , sellout Just add the word salad dressing and there you go

  • D. C. Sessions

    I’m estimating $4 trillion to level them. And then what? We now occupy a large country with 78 million people (79 million – 1 million dead) who absolutely hate us for good reasons. Plus every Moslem kid who wants to be a jihadi and kill American soldiers.

    OK, so what’s the downside?

  • vereverum

    @ raven #9

    .

    You’ve probably already seen this, but if not you might like it.

    http://www.poetry-archive.com/s/the_battle_of_blenheim.html

    though considering its age, it might be depressing to realize how some things just never change.

  • StevoR

    @21. colnago80 : “A half dozen well targeted 15 megaton bombs would set Iran’s nuclear program back a lot more then 2 years.”

    I thought you’d changed your mind on that?

    There are a great many reasons why such a genocidal policy would be unacceptable even leaving aside (reason 0) the monstrous ethics of killing so many tens of millions of innocent people without needing to do so.

    1) Radioactive fallout all around the globe.

    2) Political fallout – after Iran gets nuked then what? Do you think Russia, China and the rest of the world would respond in any happy and predictable way? I don’t think so. Its likely that such a policy could well lead to the US of A then being subjected to attack -even perhaps nuclear attack in response. Not to mention the entire Shiite world and maybe even all Islamic nations uniting in force.

    3) Environmental consequences of poisoning so much land and then likely sea area through radioactive dust and rain throughout the region. Numerous plant and animal species would be made (at least locally) extinct, food & water sources and livelihoods of many people in neighbouring areas (Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Georgia, etc ..) jeopardised. Plenty of those are likely to flee as well as the surviving Iranian population and create another massive exodus of refugees destabilising an already volatile region and emigrating to Western lands with understandably greivences against the US for committing such an atrocity.

    Because of these and so many other issues your suggestion of the United States (I presume) using nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iran in any situation other than perhaps in response to an actual nuclear attack by Iran first is just silly. It will not happen and nor should it ever happen. Its the sort of suggestion that reflects very badly indeed upon you and I thought you had already accepted that and dropped that idea long ago.

  • StevoR

    See comment # 16 buy colnago80 here ‘boko-harams-atrocities-in-nigeria-increase / #comment-2053188’ :

    ..However, having given the matter some thought, I don’t think that such extreme measures are necessary. I think that bunker buster bombs dropped from 30,000 feet can do the job, if it becomes necessary.

    & shortly afterwards colnago80 in his comment #18 writes :

    … All in all as Mr. Kavah puts it on his blog, a negotiated settlement is greatly to be preferred and is really in everybody’s best interest.

    Back on May 16th 2014 for example.

  • StevoR
  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    This is not a real alternative solution. Whether one believes Israel’s existential fears of a massive Arab attack are real or not, they certainly seem to believe a nuclear deterrent is necessary.

    Given how fucking useless Israel’s nuclear “deterrent” has turned out to be, I’d say offering a deal to get rid of it IS a decent alternative. And it might even get Israel some support from the Arab states, who know, even if Israel doesn’t, that they have at least as much to fear from a nuclear Iran as Israel does.

    Seriously, this would be a perfect opportunity, not only to add more pressure on Iran to give up nukes, but also to get Arab states to finally find a little bit of common cause with Israel, and thus end Israel’s political isolation in the region. If Israel’s “leaders” aren’t imaginative enough to see this, then fuck them — they’re beyond hope and don’t deserve one more penny of support from anywhere.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    See comment # 16 buy colnago80 here…

    See comment #21 by Colnago on this very thread just yesterday. (Old question that he never answered the first time: does anyone even MAKE 15-megaton nukes?)

  • Matrim

    @35, Raging Bee

    The US certainly doesn’t. The biggest active nuclear weapon we have at the moment is in the single megaton range (assuming peak detonation). The vast majority of nuclear weapons are in the low hundreds of kilotons.

  • colnago80

    Re Matrim @ #36

    A bomb in the range of 15 Mt could be quickly assembled as we once had them. The reason that we no longer have them in the inventory is because none of our missiles can deliver such a bomb. They would have to be delivered by B52s I don’t know if the B1 has sufficient lift to deliver it) which are no longer outfitted to carry them (they are outfitted to engage in carpet bombing with conventional dumb bombs or deliver cruise missiles).

    Re StevoR @ #32

    That is my current position, especially with the news item to which I posed a like the other day relative to the development of enhanced bunker buster bombs. The comment relative to 15 Mt bombs you referred to was theoretical in nature and in no way, shape, form, or regard reflects my current thinking.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Colnago80 : Thanks for that. I wish you had been as clear as you were above back in your comment #21 here.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    The comment relative to 15 Mt bombs you referred to was theoretical in nature and in no way, shape, form, or regard reflects my current thinking.

    Fuck you, chickenhawk, if the comment doesn’t reflect your current “thinking,” then why the fuck to you keep on repeating it over and fucking over? You’re not even grown-up enough, either to own your own words, or to admit they were wrong.

  • StevoR

    Raging Bee sure does rage.

    Ever thought about just listening to what other people are saying and trying to see it from their perspective RB? Ever considered that you, Raging Bee, may be wrong not them in part or whole?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Ever thought about just listening to what other people are saying and trying to see it from their perspective RB?

    I listened plenty — that’s how I came to the conclusion that certain other points of view are dead wrong, irrational, bigoted and dishonest.

    Ever considered that you, Raging Bee, may be wrong not them in part or whole?

    Sure I have…all I need is some sort of actual argument showing WHERE I’m wrong.