Obama’s Own Top General Just Obliterated Barack’s Biggest Claim About Iran. He’ll Be Furious…
The United States’ top military officer made clear during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he has not advised President Obama that the U.S. must either accept the Iranian nuclear deal or go to war.
In seeking to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to a skeptical congress and American people, the president, on multiple occasions, has offered this stark choice.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who is a combat veteran, challenged this premise in her questioning of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
“This seems to be a military decision and I understand that you advise the president on these issues,” she said. “Is that what you have told the president, is that we either take this deal or we go to war?”
Dempsey replied: “No, at no time did that come up in our conversation nor did I make that comment.”
Ernst continued her line of questioning: “Who is advising the president then that we must go to war if this deal is not signed?”
Dempsey answered: “I can’t answer that. I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them.”
The senator said: “We are taught in the military about DIME: Diplomatic options, Information operations, Military operations, and Economic types of sanctions and opportunities that we might have. So for the president to outright reject everything but war is outrageous to me. And I do hope that you are able to better advise him that he needs to be careful with his language because that seems to be the rhetoric we are hearing out there is that we either go to war or we accept this deal, and I reject that premise.”
“As long as we agree that military strikes on a sovereign nation is an act of war, but there are things between here and there,” the general responded.
Dempsey’s contention that the United States has a “range of options” between the current state of affairs and war (“here and there”) seemed to directly contradict what the president has been telling the American people. The general did call the plan the most “durable” option available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, according to the Jerusalem Post.
Secretary of State John Kerry insisted in his testimony today that the Hobson’s Choice presented President Obama is accurate: “It’s not a choice the president wants to make, but it’s the inevitable consequence of them moving to assert what they believe is their right in the furtherance of their program.”
The Jerusalem Post reports:
Reacting to the agreement, Adm. (ret.) James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander now serving as dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University outside Boston, said he had several serious concerns.
“The top is the verification regime, which is starting to roughly resemble Swiss cheese,” he said. “You can drive a truck through some of the holes. I am very concerned about that.”
If Congress rejects the deal, the US “still can drive some degree of sanctions,” Stavridis said.
“There are cyber options to pursue,” he continued. “There are clandestine options to pursue. There are special forces options to pursue. I reject a notion that the choice is simply between this deal and going to war.”
As reported by Western Journalism, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the deal a “stunning, historic mistake.” The Israeli leader listed three troubling aspects of the agreement:
- It lifts economic sanctions against the rogue regime, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into Iran.
- It keeps Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place.
- It gives Iran 24 days to respond to any inspection of facilities by the U.N.
Congress has 60 days to review to deal and is expected to vote on it in September. President Obama has promised to veto any legislation aimed at blocking the deal, which would require a two-thirds vote by both chambers to override.