Historic indeed it was - historically BAD! - bad for the region and bad for the world, especially bad for the USA and the State of Israel.
If you wish to read the full text of the "deal", Click Here.
We all know the old saying, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." As a start to this offering, the below video presents Neville Chamberlain of Great Britian just before WW II, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Watch the short video, remember history, and then continue reading.
John Kerry -
His career has been spent in the military and in politics. No managerial experience - that's right none -; no experience in negotiating "deals", no experience in crafting successful ventures of any kind, and no experience in solving the everyday issues facing any manager.
Any successes during his military career have been rightfully tarnished by his open criticisms and vilifications of Viet Nam verterans. Leadership is defined by how you support your people. In this, Kerry is and was an abject failure.
The president -
As we know, the president's career before assuming the Office of the President was that of a community organizer. Having served a brief time as an "educator", and I use the term graciously, he then spent a short time as a Senator - having accomplished nothing. Again, here as well, no managerial experience - that's right none -; no experience in negotiating "deals", no experience in crafting successful ventures of any kind, and no experience in solving the everyday issues facing any manager.
Clearly, neither has the experience nor understanding in negotiating anything - much less something as important as a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Where it is obvious that a lack of negotiating experience was running rampant here, consider a few "basics" of successful negotiating:
Or, another way of stating this is "know when you're won".
The only way to satisfy this is to know, up front, the end game you are playing.
Under what conditions should you walk away? Under what conditions should you say "OK!"?
Under what conditions MUST you walk away?
Both parties to a negotiation should understand
If you don't have the necessary authority,
you may be wasting everybody's time.
the other's authority here.
Both parties to a negotiation should understand
Knowing this can help formulate your strategy.
This is especially important with the "Iran Deal". Why?
Such leverages should be used to "entice"
Because, it is well known that being a Muslim
country where lying is part of the culture (see below for more on this), Iran
will be prone to mislead and misdirect.
5. Know what leverages you have - or don't have;
and, as best you can, know the other side's as well.
the other side into concessions on those things you "must
have" at a minimum. - (see #1, above)
Such leverages should be used to "entice"
Each side is expected to have baseline things
that must be agreed upon to start in good faith.
If these can not be agreed upon,
either or both should "walk away".
There are, of course, many others. But, this should be sufficient for now.
So, why was the "Iran Deal" a bad deal? Almost all of the things mentioned above seem not to have been in play by "our side". This is inexperience bordering on criminal based on what is at stake here.
Let's start with number 6. - starting
At present Iran is holding 4 US citizens, is a (if not the) major sponsor of terrorism throughout the globe including Hamas and Hezbollah, has declared that they intend on wiping Israel off the map, and intend on forcing Islam on the world at large.
Those facts were declared "not part of the negotiations" by the US - up front. Why? We are told the reason is that this "deal" is only about nuclear issues. However, a day or so before the "deal" was signed Iran introduced into the "deal" that the current "arms embargo" against Iran should be lifted. And, we agreed to it. The arms embargo had NOTHING to do with nuclear anything. The arms embargo was all about conventional weaponry.
Russia and China are very happy with the "deal". They both may now resume their sales of conventional arms to Iran - a funding source both countries desire and need.
At the very minimum, before we began talking, we should have insisted that our citizens be set free; we should have insisted that Israel be free from Iran's sponsored attacks, and that Iran's financing of world wide terrorism be halted. But, we did none of those things. We now are the laughing stock of the middle east and the world for our pathetic showing. But, is the president downhearted? No, he is joyous. Leads one to wonder just what he really wanted out of the "deal".
Now number 5. - leverages
Economic sanctions have been in place against Iran for some time. They were having deleterious effects. Iran was suffering skyrocketing inflation, goods were difficult to come by, their people were suffering economically, and within an estimated 6 months their entire economy was in danger of collapse.
Yet, part of the "deal" is that sanctions are to immediately lifted. This is prior to any proof that Iran is living up to their part of the "deal". Besides that being stupid, this specific "deal" required significant inspection and oversight. (see #4, above) However, as you will see in the next paragraph, we did little, if anything, to assure that the inspections would happen. We totally gave away our leverages - it seems just so Obama could claim "victory".
Even more ludicrous, according to Susan Rice, our National Security Adviser, as part of the "deal" the US is not allowed to be part of the inspection teams.
To add insult to injury, while the negotiations have been going on the US has been and will continue to pay Iran $BILLIONS$ for the privilege of negotiating.
As to leverages, here would be my approach in this specific negotiation. It would be interesting to see what Iran's "counter" would have been.
Let's address number 4. - trust
As an aside, in the normal business world this seldom is an issue. Negotiations are held, agreements are made, the results are provided to "contracts experts" who make sure everything is legal, the contract is signed and put into effect.
The issue of "trustworthiness" really doesn't play, as if someone does something against the contract, ugly words start to flow such as "material breach of contract" and other words that equal lawsuits, etc.
But, in dealing with Iran such assurances do not exist.
In the western world where Christianity and Judiasm dominate, the culture heavily relies on that offered by The Ten Commandments. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about a basic moral compass. One of those commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
This, of course, means lying is bad.
However, in the Islamic world this is not the case. The Qur'an, 3:28, contains the Al Taqiyya. This is the Muslims' license to lie to infidels in order to camouflage Islam's holy war strategy (jihad) to conquer the world. No, I am not making this up.
So, it would seem that their very culture supports and promotes deception in order to meet thair aims.
So, with Iran, trust should never enter into your strategy or considerations.
This aspect of negotiations with Iran is a killer (perhaps literally). Part of this deal encompasses inspections of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Remember, we - nor anyone else, it seems - wants them to get "the bomb".
Withour going through all the difficult language in the "deal", here's basically what it says and what we agreed to:
Iran gets a 24 days notice for any inspections - how stupid is this? If they don't agree to the date, a "commission" is formed to discuss this. Then, the commission, within 3 days, is supposed to give Iran its findings. If Iran still doesn't agree, then another commission is convened. This cycle repeats and repeats and repeats. So much for inspections.
On to number 3. - research
I don't believe it was ever even defined - by anyone - what we wanted out of this vs. what we truly needed. This is especially true as we deleted from the discussion all the issues addressed under #6, above. We are told that what was necessary was that Iran not get the bomb. It seems that this "deal" offers a hundred billion+ dollars to Iran to pursue their nuclear program, continue their sponsorship of terrorism, and be able to buy weapons on the open market without restriction. It seems like Iran knew what they wanted. Why didn't we? Or, did we? More on this later.
Now, for number 2. - authority
Without facts, it appears that there wasn't much authority needed to "seal the deal" on our side. The only discernable goal was that Obama could claim a major foreign relations "victory". Hopefully, there was more to it than that; but, evidence is lacking.
Lastly, number 1. - What do you need?
This was covered in the immediate above; i.e., Number 2.
OK! What does this "deal" actually mean?
First, it causes the rest of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.) to KNOW that they need nuclear arms as well. Remember, the rest of the middle east is Sunni, Iran is Shia - and the two hate each other. So, what the world really needs - NOT - is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
You know that when Saudi Arabia and Israel are on the same side on an issue, someone "jumpted the shark".
Second, it allows the major funding source and sponsor of terrorism to expand its activities unrestricted. This "deal" will provide Iran upwards of $150 BILLION dollars almost instantly. Consider: From 1948 until and including today, the USA has provided $124.3 Billion to Israel, our ally. Can anyone spell "Inappropriate, Foolish, and Unsavory"?
Third, since the "deal" was not supposed to include anything but that related to nuclear issues, Iran is free to further develop and expand their production of ICBMs. With their repeated statements of the kind, "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!", what could be the problem? The rest of the Middle East is petrified and very angry at this "deal". And, they have cause to be alarmed.
Possible motives to our negotiators' actions? No one really knows. Some say it's purely to establish Obama's legacy, others say he secretly wants Iran to be the controlling factor in the Middle East, and many other assertions are made without evidence. But, motives aside, when an administration puts our country and its sworn allies at severe risk, we should all be worried - and angry.
This "deal" is bad for America, was negotiated in an inexperienced manner, and puts the entire world at risk.
What is even worse is the fact that there are "secret" agreements with this "deal" that the American People are not privy to - NOT EVEN our elected representatives. What incentive would there be for ANYONE to vote for something they are not allowed to review and understand?
We should all contact our representatives in Congress and demand they vote "NO!" on the "deal". The well being of ourselves and of our childen may well depend on this "deal" not being allowed to move forward.