I want to start by saying I totally agree with your assessment of Iran's state-sponsering of terrorism. Where I do disagree is that sanctions, in my opinion are the wrong move. I think sanctions have worked on other countries but Iran is odd. We are effectively sanctioning the big business capitalists in Iran who already oppose the regime. Sanctions don't hurt the leadership. So all the sanctions do is harm the people who are already more moderate/pro-US.
1. If sanctions don't hurt the leadership, why are they so willing to put restrictions on their nuclear program to have them lifted?
2. We agree that the Iranian regime does a lot of very bad things
apart from this nuclear deal, and that there's nothing in this deal that's going to change that. The only way to change that is for the regime itself to change, and to change in favor of a more moderate replacement. Yet after this deal, it was reported that the more moderate elements of the country were dancing and celebrating. In other words, this deal just made that regime
more popular among those we'd have to count on to change it. It
reduces the pressure on the regime to moderate.
The only real challenge to the mullahs came when average people started resisting in 2010, and that came while Iran was under sanctions.
What makes you say this? The $3.5+ billion we send to Israel up-front at the beginning of the year with no checks on how it is spent or what Israel does internationally?
The President
inherited a policy of supporting Israel that has been in place for over 50 years. It would be politically impossible for the President to cut off support for Israel, so the mere fact that the
United States as an entity had continued support does not give much of a window on the views of this particular President. Remember, this is the guy who was against gay marriage until the political winds changed.
As for why I believe he's more sympathetic towards Iran (and that's something not capable of being
proven either way, so it's just an opinion), it's a few things. But the most recent really stuck with me: the "
words have consequences" double standard.
When Netenyahu made his election-eve statement about a two-state solution not being possible under current conditions, the Administration pounced on it with borderline glee. Even though most observers said it was made for domestic political reasons, and even though Netanyahu clarified/walked back his remarks almost immediately, the Administration still wouldn't let it go. Josh Earnest couldn't even hide the smile on his face when asked about the clarification --"
words have consequences" is the talking point he pushed regarding Israel, even after reporters pointed out the clarification/walking back of those comments.
Except when those words are uttered by Iran's leadership. The Iranian leadership can endorse "death to Israel" (which certainly suggest
Iran doesn't support a "two-state" solution), "Death to the U.S.", and all the similar statements they make, including jews not even being human. They don't even attempt to clarify or walk-back those statements. Instead, they actually come out and say they're not changing any of their actions in the region. And they continue funding/supporting terrorism in the region.
And yet, the Administration's response to
Iran's words is essentially nothing. The excuse-mongers say (with no evidence at all, I might add) that they don't really
mean it, it's just for domestic political consumption (sound familiar?), so it doesn't really matter. I'd personally say such rhetoric matters
very much, even
if they didn't "mean" it, because you have an entire generation of children being exposed to absolute hatred by much of their adult leadership.