What's In A Name

 A treaty by any other name would smell as putrid. John Kerry has tried in recent days to explain America's concessions to Iran. Perhaps this is due to the large percentage of our people who think this deal with Iran is a bad deal a terrible deal.

The first and most promised of all aspects of this agreement is the fact that Iran will be under the inspectors microscope constantly; thus giving us a clear indication of any violation of treaty protocol. This sounds great until Kerry elaborates on what rules the inspectors and inspections must follow. For example: Only those nations with diplomatic relations with Iran may actually enter the country and perform these inspections leaving America out of the inspections completely. But that is all right nations such as Syria, and Russia and China, they can be the inspectors for us. All nations who at one time or another has shouted for the destruction of the United States and Israel. We can really trust these inspectors for a truthful report. Not only are these nation to be the inspectors but after Iran says not now to an inspection they will have up to 24 days for compliance thus giving them almost a month to do some rearranging; which they have done so effectively in the past.

Secondly Kerry says that we can reinstate sanctions at any time. This can only happen after the United Nations agrees; which is unlikely seeing as they have just approved of  this deal. Even if the UN agrees it would take up to 6 months to begin to reinstate them. Reapplying sanctions just won't happen. There is a good reason for countries not to bring sanctions back on Iran; the oil will be flowing again! National economies will be bolstered by this influx of cheap oil and natural gas, including the U.S. because many of these transaction will take place using the U.S. petrol-dollars which will bolster our economy as well. So this deal if not stopped now will be here to stay.

What really upsets me is the I don't care attitude of our President and his spokesman John Kerry. Mr Kerry said the other day that there is no way to guarantee that Iran will not use the influx of about 100 Billion Dollars and more into the Iranian economy to enhance and build up terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qa'ida. Kerry stated that he hoped that Iran would use their billions to improve their own economy instead. But with the eventual incoming billions in oil revenues Iran says: why not do both? Kerry is building his hope on Iran's goodness to its people, its goodness to the world and its goodness to us. Goodness? Good Luck with that!

And then the final statement by John Kerry he made the other day was that this treaty was not based on trust. Excuse me "not based on trust". Every treaty is based on trust. Trust that the other side will uphold the stipulations of the treaty to which they assigned their names. Chamberlain placed his trust in Hitler keeping his word. He did not. We signed a nuclear treaty with North Korea trusting that they would uphold the treaty, they did not. The American Indians placed their trust in our country's leaders that they would abide by the treaties made with them, we also did not keep our word. All treaty's are based on trust to some extent. If we didn't trust that Iran was going to abide by the agreement, then why in the world would we enter into a deal that we already didn't believe would work? That is like playing a percentage game. Hey there is a 5% chance they will follow the treaty therefore lets sign it.  In our own nation's history and in the history of the modern world, percentages say that the United States and Israel and the world will lose again. Stop the deal! Stop the deal now!