Tuesday, May 23rd | 27 Iyyar 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
July 23, 2015 6:58 am

Hey @TheIranDeal, I Have Some Questions – Actually, Lots of Them

avatar by Ben Cohen / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Hey @TheIranDeal, I Have Some Questions – Actually, Lots of Them" to a friend
The new @TheIranDeal Twitter handle from the White House.

The new @TheIranDeal Twitter handle from the White House.

JNS.org – This week, a bunch of journalists, foreign policy wonks, and assorted pundits received an email from the White House that began with the legendary words, “Hey, I’m Ben Rhodes, a Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. For the past few years, I’ve been working closely with America’s negotiating team, which was tasked with finding a way to achieve a diplomatic resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Don’t you just love that “Hey,” greeting? So informal, so accessible, so confident, so quintessentially Obaman. And it didn’t end there.

“Last week,” Rhodes continued, “after two years of tough negotiations, our team along with our international partners achieved just that.”

Related coverage

May 23, 2017 4:01 pm
0

BBC’s ‘Man in the Middle East’ Spouts Tired Jerusalem Lies

On May 18, listeners of BBC Radio 4 heard the fourth part in Jeremy Bowen’s series of programs entitled, "Our Man in the...

Perhaps anticipating a chorus of “Oh no, you didn’t,” Rhodes added that “it’s important that everyone here and around the world understands exactly what’s in it and how it’ll work.” And then came this assurance: “This is a strong deal, with significant constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, and unprecedented access to Iranian nuclear facilities—including 24/7, continuous monitoring.”

So what do you do if you still have doubts? The purpose of the round-robin email from Rhodes was to announce the latest PR initiative from the White House, in the form of a Twitter feed with the handle @TheIranDeal. (If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had done the same, the Obama administration and its sympathizers would now all be whining about “hasbara,” the Hebrew word for public diplomacy, but let’s leave that aside for now.)

According to Rhodes, @TheIranDeal is “dedicated to delivering the facts and answering your questions about the deal and how it enhances American national security.” What that means—and here, Rhodes was explicit—is ensuring that America isn’t dragged “into another conflict in the Middle East.” In other words, the choice is between agreeing to this lousy, feeble deal or risking the lives and limbs of our troops in an Iraq/Afghanistan redux. But if you’re still not convinced, you can send comments and questions to @TheIranDeal, and they will be answered. As the Twitter page declares, “Tweet us your questions, and we’ll set the record straight.”

As of the afternoon of Wednesday, July 22, more than 24 hours after the Twitter feed was launched, and with more than 12,000 followers already signed up, @TheIranDeal had published exactly 19 tweets. They were all pretty platitudinous, more or less, for example, “Why#IranDeal is a vital step: Problems like sponsoring terror or detaining citizens made more difficult to resolve if Iran acquired a nuke.” As for answering the difficult questions, I saw no evidence of any effort to do so. Two questions I sent them remain, at the time of this writing, unanswered, and dozens of friends and colleagues have told me that they were hearing the same virtual silence.

Maybe the White House is short-staffed. Maybe President Barack Obama’s confidant, Valerie Jarrett, has suddenly decided she doesn’t like the idea. Maybe they don’t know how to answer the difficult questions. I can’t say for sure, but what I do know is this: With @TheIranDeal, the Obama administration has pledged itself to a direct dialogue with the citizens of this country and with the global public at large. So we need to hold them to account and bombard them with questions and comments.

In that light, I modestly offer some suggestions, in no particular order, as to what you all should be raising. There are any number of topics—the lifting of sanctions, the support for terrorism, the Iranian backing for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, the weak inspections regime, the woeful human rights situation in Iran—that must be addressed. All you have to remember is to keep your questions within Twitter’s 140-character limit. Oh, and maybe start off with the word “Hey,” since this is now apparently an acceptable addition to the lexicon of political terminology.

Hey @TheIranDeal, how will you prevent the sanctions windfall coming Iran’s way from being used to kill more Syrian kids?

Hey @TheIranDeal, if Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, why is the regime only “called upon” not to undertake ballistic missile activity?

Hey @TheIranDeal, why are you claiming “24/7 continuous monitoring” when the Iranians have at least 24 days to approve inspections?

Hey @TheIranDeal, what’s your response to nuclear expert Olli Heinonen’s claim that the 24-day window will make hiding nuclear arms development work easier?

Hey @TheIranDeal, why are you taking Gen. Qassem Solaimani, a man responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, off the sanctions list?

Hey @TheIranDeal, how do you assess nuclear expert David Albright’s claim that installing new centrifuges will lower Iran’s break-out time to a few days or weeks?

Hey @TheIranDeal, what leverage do you have if the Iranians refuse full disclosure of the Possible Military Dimensions of their nuclear research?

Hey @TheIranDeal, how will you monitor the underground Fordow enrichment facility if the Revolutionary Guards won’t let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in?

Hey @TheIranDeal, can you explain how legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program—begun clandestinely—will improve human rights in that country?

Hey @TheIranDeal, does it bother you that Iran’s Supreme Leader addressed a “Death to America” rally one day after this deal was announced?

Hey @TheIranDeal, what will you do if Iran’s National Security Council refuses to ratify the deal?

Hey @TheIranDeal, to quote President Obama, are “all options” still on the table?

There are hundreds of similar questions that can be asked, but I hope you get my drift. The White House believes it can sell the Iran deal in the manner that one might sell a hot fashion designer—putting Obama on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” plastering social media platforms, and creating a general zeitgeist that anyone who opposes this deal is not only nuts, but probably someone who voted for George W. Bush.

Keep blitzing @TheIranDeal with questions. Keep demanding answers. Just because they are silent, it doesn’t mean they aren’t listening.

Ben Cohen, senior editor of TheTower.org & The Tower Magazine, writes a weekly column for JNS.org on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics. His writings have been published in Commentary, the New York Post, Haaretz, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He is the author of “Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism” (Edition Critic, 2014).

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • KENNETH C WILLIAMS

    🙂

  • ESLombard

    Instead of sending refined Harvard types, why didn’t POTUS send along some Chicago street thugs to cope with the wily, duplicitous Iranians with whom we are probably no match?

  • Michael Chenkin

    The only argument in favor of the Iran sellout is that the alternative is war. Since Israel has long been willing to take out the Iranian nuclear capability this argument is totally false. If the President did not want to explain another war to a war-weary America, why has the administration continually sabotaged Israel’s efforts, revealed critical Israeli tactical information, and refused to provide Israel with bunker buster bombs. Why has the administration used all its resources to prevent Israel from eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat when Israel would do everything and no American involvement would be needed at all?

    And even if the United States decided to take matters into its own hands, the elimination of the Iran nuclear capability would require nothing more than two or three weeks of attacks by bombers and cruise missiles. This is hardly war.

    Most damning against the totally false war-is-the-only-alternative argument is its hypocrisy. If we are so adverse to war, why did the Obama administration conduct the totally unjustified war against Mummar Quadaffi in Libya, a military engagement much longer and involved than the one needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? Why did we go to war against a leader who had surrendered his nuclear arsenal and who had cooperated with the west in containing terrorism. Why did we go to war against Quadaffi when doing so provided material support to Al-Queda in North Africa? Why did we go to war against a nation that was stable and supportive of American interests and whose outcome was an absolutely predictable chaos worse than Iraq?

    Why were we willing to go to war against a country that combated terrorism and not against the world’s largest supporter of terrorism? Why were we willing to go to war against a nation that had surrendered its nuclear bombs and not against one moving inexorably towards a nuclear arsenal complete with ICBM’s to deliver them? WHY WERE WE WILLING TO GO TO WAR AGAINST COUNTRY THAT POSED NO THREAT TO ISRAEL AND NOT AGAINST A COUNTRY COMPLETELY COMMITTED TO DESTROYING ISRAEL?

  • steven L

    One answer for most of the questions:They need their nuclear arsenal for nuclear medicine!
    The Pr. must have a “transparent” RED table!
    If INSC rejects the deal, more concessions are available.
    Fordo is off limit. That solves this question.

  • Francis Figliola

    Why is my comment awaiting moderation???????????

  • Francis Figliola

    Yes, Ben Rhoads. English major graduated NYU with MFA in creative writing. Before his political career was aspiring to be a writer and penned “Oasis of Love”. Married to Ann Norris, chief foreign policy adviser to Senator Barbara Boxer. Hey, you think he qualifies as a Security Adviser in the WH? writinghttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2583

  • Marty

    The conduct of the Obama Administration is predicated on the assumption that Americans are both stupid and gullible. Maybe the fact that so many actually voted for this guy convinced them.

Algemeiner.com