Support for the so-called “Iran nuclear deal” has topped the number of votes needed for approval in the U.S. Senate.
But plenty of opposition remains. (That’s nothing new; the nation these days remains divisive on just about every issue.)
What’s wrong with this picture? Why has the majority in the U.S. Senate chosen to back this still-questionable deal? Why does doubt persist among the deal’s critics?
Is the continuing ying and yang over the deal just politics as usual? Has the debate (or lack thereof) grown that shallow over this scary piece of impending foreign policy?
What are we not being told? What’s between the lines and in the fine print of this “agreement”? An informative, transparent and thorough analysis of the “deal” has yet to surface.
Whatever transpires in Washington, we would do well not to pooh-pooh who we’re dealing with here. The dark side of the Middle East still spawns guys like Osama bin Laden. (Remember him?) Lying and deception are part of the culture in that part of the world. Bin Laden was elusive — he knew how to hide in plain sight for years. Why would the location of Iran’s facilities for making nuclear weapons be any different?
“Trust” is not in the dictionary of the jihadist leadership abroad. Closer to home, our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle would do well to remember that.
In the modern world, where the United States of America has been a central figure up until now, might indeed does make right.