Brian Meadows and his inconvenient questions

A post by Brian Meadows, a member of the Facebook "Progressive Zionism" forum drew my attention, mostly due to forcefulness of the argument - in defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran. So much so that I decided to do some parsing of the post and to squeeze in some remarks here. So, if the link at the beginning doesn't work for you, you shall see the full text of Mr Meadows post below.

OK, folks. I'm lukewarm about the deal with Iran myself, but I've a few questions to ask the irreconcilables and a few inconvenient facts for them as well.

Facts should be always welcome, to irreconcilables and otherwise, I submit.

First, the questions: could any one of you have gotten as good a deal?

I would submit that, as far as my sensitive (to beta and gamma rays and other unpleasant elements of a nuke going off in the vicinity) skin is concerned, there are no shades of "good". Either Ayatollahs get the nukes or they don't. All the shades in between are irrelevant. And, as most experts on the subject agree, Iran does get the nukes at the end of the day. So what we have is a bad agreement - one that President Obama promised to walk away from.

If not, shall I assume that you're ready to put on a Foreign Legion uniform or something and march to war against Iran?

I am not sure whom Mr Meadows is addressing in this post - because here in Israel we don't need Foreign Legion's uniforms, we have our own and been fighting Iran via its proxies - like Hezbollah and Hamas - for quite a long time already. As for the war with Iran - unfortunately, in the circumstances, it will be coming - 10 or so years down the road, maybe even sooner. I am being too old for that one, but my children are not, and I am not looking forward to that war, no sir.

If you couldn't have gotten as good a deal and you're not ready to fight, I have a label for you: BLOODTHIRSTY TRENCH-DODGER! Something which any competent soldier despises, so STFU!

I would have agreed to that sentiment, but the proposal to STFU* kinda doesn't sit right with me - let's leave it for later.

Second: many of you say, I know, that it was tough sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place and you're probably at least partially right. However, another part of this was the Bush administration's refusal to talk to 'evil' at all at a time when, had we done so, we could've put the kibosh on any nuclear plans Iran might have had. In 2003, Iran had only 300 centrifuges. I also suggest that Darth Cheney had an ulterior motive: he wanted to direct, from behind (he being the chief of bloodthirsty trench-dodgers) an American march into Tehran and make Iran an example of what happens to our satraps who dare to think they deserve real independence! And had the GOP won the 2006 midterms, I believe that would've been set into motion!

Ehehe... what can I say about that, not being a side in the GOP-Dems incessant bickering? Only that if I had a dollar (nah, make it a shekel) for every time a supporter (or a member) of the current administration blames Bush/Cheney for every SNAFU that happened during the last 6+ years, I would be quite a wealthy character by now. As for that statement that Bush administration should have settled the Iranian nuclear ambitions back then - what is it based upon exactly? As far as I remember, Iranian attitude to everything American back then was even worse than it is today, so what chance did Bush have? Nah... empty words.

Third, Iranian feeling against us dates back to 1953, when our beloved CIA engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected (and SECULAR!) prime minister Mossadegh, which then allowed the Shah to return as absolute monarch.
Related to this, some of you seem to think we could have brought Iran much closer to effective surrender. Let me now share with you that NO Iranian has forgotten Mossadegh nor our overthrow of him. In light of that, no Iranian government was or is likely to do that. Remember what happened when the Royal Navy claimed a right to stop our ships? Strike up the 1812 Overture.
So if you think we could get a better deal, you need to account for Iran's national pride, something which is rather (and understandably) prickly towards us right now. Obama knows this and acted accordingly.

None of the above information, enlightening as it may be for those who don't know that bit of history, justifies the holes in the agreement that make it rather a temporary patch instead of a definite solution. These facts may explain Obama's behavior and his decision making process (although they don't, not fully) - but they do not make the "best possible" agreement into a workable agreement. And believe you me, Mr Meadows, I am more sorry about it than you.

I have time, so you all can take yours as you post. If there's anything you think I've missed, feel free to call attention to it.

I think, Mr Meadows, that you missed, first of all, the facts that are related to the agreement itself, and here is the point where I would like to ask a question or two: have you indeed read the agreement? And have you read any critique of the agreement?

None of us know how rationality and messianism are mixed in the Iranian leadership and that can go either way.

Indeed, so why are we ready to assume the best, signing of on something with more holes than cheese in it?

But either you think you can get a better deal or you're ready to put on a uniform. Absent both, STFU and do some listening!

My last remark will be not about the substance of the post but about its style. As far as I understand from your FB page, Mr Meadows, you are a "Speech Writer & Campaign Aide at Progressive Messaging", meaning a person versed in all things PR. Which is (for me) a bit hard to reconcile with the rather crude styling of your post and your insistence that people who disagree with you STFU - even if they are bloodthirsty trench-dodgers. But of course I don't know anything about campaigning and its current style in US, so who knows...

Now I shall STFU.

(*) For those who don't know the term - STFU.