By Jonathan Greenberg, Originally published in The Hill
In the classic film “Rebel Without a Cause,” as Jim and Buzz prepare to race two stolen cars toward the edge of a cliff, Jim asks Buzz why they’re doing it. “You gotta do something, now don’t ya,” answers Buzz.
The response a normal, rational person would give to Buzz Gunderson is, “well…okay…but how about doing something less stupid than this?”
Buzz’s instinct – we have to do something – is too often evident in making public policy; the simple act of “doing” is laudable, often in spite of what the “doing” actually does. Whenever someone is rational enough to point out that a proposed action is fraught with obvious peril, the “doers” always demand a proposed alternative. Even when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives, the appropriate answer to such a defeatist, unserious question is, “something less stupid than this.”
Aside from the people responsible for negotiating President Obama’s awful Iran deal and their most politically loyal lapdogs, no one even tries to pretend that the agreement is a good one. They tried at first. For about a week.
But with a $100 billion windfall for the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism, a “snap-back” provision that is so cumbersome it will never be used, a grandfather clause that immunizes new contracts from reinstated sanctions, an inspection system that allows Iran to take its own samples and falls inexcusably short of the anywhere/anytime setup we were promised, secret side deals that nobody will be allowed to look at, international acceptance of Iranian violations of its treaty obligations, total disembowelment of the UN Security Council by declaring worthless the sanctions resolutions it has passed over a decade, and an death blow dealt to the entire post World War II non-proliferation regime that has mostly kept a lid on nukes since the ‘60s, it’s probably just as well that supporters of the deal have stopped pretending their support is based on the details.