Actor Albert Brooks had the perfect one-tweet response last night to all the hype over the just signed deal on Iran’s nuclear program. In summary, how’d that deal with North Korea work out for the U.S. and the world?
Well, at least this one worked out well. http://t.co/reiUpociXv
— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) July 15, 2015
Bingo!
Here’s the transcript that shows just how similar the rhetoric in 1994 is to that of today:
“Before I take your questions, I’d like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States,” Clinton said at the press conference.
“North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
“South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing, and they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
“The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.”
The alleged key to keep Iran in compliance with the deal is that sanctions will “snap back” if Iran is found to be cheating. But this hinges on countries like China and Russia playing along and implementing new sanctions. Also, there’s the possibility that new sanctions won’t affect business already in place, meaning there’s “likely to be a ‘gold rush’ of business rushing to sign deals with Iran” as soon as current sanctions are lifted.
Russia is already pushing to sell Iran advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles which would be used to defend Iranian nuclear sites from any future attacks.
Brooks was then challenged on the tweet by KCBS newsradio anchor Marty Lenz, which didn’t go so well for Lenz:
@AlbertBrooks Hi Mr. Brooks, understand hesitance…but what's the alternative? War? Continued sanctions? Those won't change trajectory.
— Marty Lenz (@ContactLenz_KOA) July 15, 2015
@LenzContact Maybe a better deal.
— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) July 15, 2015
@AlbertBrooks which is? If you cannot define it within the negotiation parameters…everybody give something then…saying better is hollow
— Marty Lenz (@ContactLenz_KOA) July 16, 2015
@LenzContact No ICBM's. Easier inspections. Recognize Israel so they don't live under constant "we want all of you dead"
Deal?— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) July 16, 2015
@AlbertBrooks it is imperfect…& still has the Crazy of Israel hatred
But some.of that would be non starters and wouldnt stop nuke threat— Marty Lenz (@ContactLenz_KOA) July 16, 2015
By imperfect he means that Iran gets sanction relief, billions of dollars in new investment and keep its nuclear program. Some bargain we got there.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member