The Insincerity of the Iran Agreement Defenders

The debate over the Iran agreement is provoking flashbacks to the Cold War, when disarmament movements in the West aimed chiefly at the disarmament of the western democracies. From my email in-box, a message from the “Global Zero” campaign (and note the punch line at the end of this first paragraph):

“As we mark the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must consider the present-day threat posed by nuclear weapons — and the steps we can take to eliminate that threat. Right now, the U.S. Congress has an opportunity to make the world safer by approving a deal that stops the spread of the bomb in the Middle East. They should seize it,” said Global Zero leader and former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Yes, we knew Plame was an ideologue all along, but nice to have additional confirmation.


“The only way we can guarantee the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never repeated is to eliminate all nuclear weapons — everywhere. Skeptics of that approach have long argued that countries like Iran would never agree to forgo nuclear weapons. They were wrong. And the particular elements of this deal — the intrusive inspections, the verification measures, the way it was negotiated as an international agreement — are the same elements we should apply globally to move the world from 15,000 nuclear weapons to zero,” said Global Zero executive director Derek Johnson.

What agreement can Johnson possibly be reading? It does show wishful thinking in action, in grasping after an agreement that, at best, merely delays the development of an Iranian bomb.