Posted on 07/25/2015 2:07:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If Congress doesn’t kill the Iran nuclear deal, the next president will have two choices, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said after attending a rally in front of the White House opposed to the deal.
“Any commander in chief worth his salt should be prepared on the first day of his presidency to repudiate this disastrous deal,” Cruz told TheBlaze Thursday. “The next president in all likelihood will enter the Oval Office and be informed that he or she has one of two choices: Either acquiesce in allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons because Iran is likely to be on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons due to President Obama’s catastrophic nuclear deal; or two, use direct military force to prevent that from happening.”
The 2016 Republican presidential candidate called on a crowd at Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House, to light up the phone lines of members of Congress to get a veto-proof majority to vote down the deal.
“Front and center in 2016 is going to be a discussion about how we protect this nation,” Cruz said. “It is going to be a major issue, in the 2016 campaign in the primary, and in the general election as well, and Hillary Clinton will have the opportunity to explain to the American people why she is OK with a nuclear Iran. I think it poses an existential threat to Israel and an enormous threat to the United States of America.”
Concerned Women for America organized the rally, which included several speakers, including Cruz. White House press secretary Josh Earnest referred to the event as a “pro-war rally.”
“All opponents of the deal will have the opportunity to explain why they would oppose the best way for us to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that is through diplomacy,” Earnest told reporters.
A contingent from the anti-war group Code Pink sought to crash the rally and shout down Cruz.
The Code Pink chants of “war monger, war monger” were mostly drowned out by shouts of “We want Ted.” But the sign-waving crowds on both sides were surprised when Cruz invited one someone from the group to speak. “You want to yell and scream, come forward,” Cruz said. Watch the full exchange here.
The event turned into a point-counterpoint at the microphone between the 2016 presidential candidate and Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, who said “it is absolutely false” that Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon. Benjamin added, “We are surrounded by zealots here who would rather have war in the Middle East.”
Cruz answered each of her questions, and neither convinced the other. But the shouting settled.
“I don’t want peace at the price of millions of Americans,” Cruz said.
Asked about his motivation for getting into a debate with Code Pink, Cruz told TheBlaze he believes in the First Amendment.
“I think it is unfortunate when you see protesters try to shout down speech, I don’t think that is an appropriate way to persuade you’re fellow citizens,” Cruz said. “They have passionate views and I was willing to engage with them and discuss it on the merits, and I hope some of the discussion caused them to reconsider facts that they believed in were not accurate.”
Much of the rally was based on why the United States did not seek the release of four Americans held in Iran. Though that was not part of the deal, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said they are doing everything they can to get the prisoners free.
Asked if he believes that, Cruz told TheBlaze “no.”
“Actions speak louder than words,” Cruz said. “The president can’t bring himself to utter their names. When the president announced this deal, nowhere in his remarks were found the words Pastor Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian, Robert Levinson. If he will not speak their names, it is of no surprise that they have not been released.”
Or help Israel take out the nuke development sites.
“Send in the military!”
Because it worked so well in Iraq, let’s do it Iran!
We should kill people and break things -- from a distance.
Mr. Obama has implied that he’d shoot down any aircraft sent to attack Iran.
Apples and oranges.
Yes, I know. He’s a traitor.
Yes. All that is needed. Delete the infrastucture.
When our current president is willing to give Iran the gun with which it will hold the world hostage, somebody better be able to say the “M” word.
Just because we had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way in Iran doesn’t mean that we should retreat in the face of real enemies.
I would argue that our current set of experienced military leaders are far better equipped for warfare in Iran, thanks to hard experience in Iran and Afghanistan.
Hiding under the covers and hoping somebody else will protect us isn’t an option. Grow a spine..
Apples and oranges? Really? We invaded Iraq because of its wmds and nuke threat. We now need to invade Iraq because of its nuke threat
I agree. However in this case the nuke facilities are buried deep underground. We will need some swat teams or some entity to go in there in some fashion to verify the facilities were destroyed. But that doesn't have to mean the conventional approach of taking over an entire country. We have to start thinking outside the box and modify Colin Powell's doctrine to "we break it THEY fix it"
A third choice: Look the other way while Israel gives Iran the last nukes it will ever need.
Yep. The point being that there are smart ways to do this and smarter people than us can devise the plans. Having said all this it would be a huge deal with lots of risks. However it is tradeoff of uncertain risks vs obama’s course of known risks of entire cities being destroyed.
I really oppose "nation building" by the military. If anyone thinks "nation building" is a good idea, then I would suggest sending in the Peace Corps.
And if anyone says, "Are you kidding?? The Peace Corps?? They'd be slaughtered!" Then I'd guess that "nation building" was no longer on the table.
The military should be used to kill people and break things. Preferably (but not always) from a distance.
Here’s something you won’t find out from the media: Israel has thermonuclear (”H-Bomb”) warheads as well as nuclear (”A-Bomb”) warheads and has nuclear cruise missiles aboard diesel-electric submarines, thus they have a second strike retaliatory option that most small nuclear states don’t have. Do you know what the “trigger” for an “H-Bomb” is?
No more nation building. These people don’t appreciate it.
If you don’t know that whole story, do some research. And if Iran doesn’t pose a nuclear threat, why did six major powers just waste years trying to negotiate a deal? And where did the word “invade” come from? No one is talking about invading Iran.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say President Cruz.
What choice would a President Cruz really have?
The Kremlin, for example, housed a bunch of bad boys, but at least they themselves didn’t WANT to die. At least there was some semblance of being rational and some threats could be negotiated away.
All of islim and Iran must be brought to its knees, imo. Whether that’s done through brute force or choking them off financially or regime change or some combination, we simply cannot coexist. That is abundantly clear.
Only the President and his inner circle has all the information from which to make those decisions. Which is why it’s of paramount importance for the Chief Executive be the right kind of guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.