Why Obama's Deal with Iran Cannot Be Trusted

I frequently rail against people making assumptions in their thinking. I often castigate others for taking a viewpoint without either actually experiencing what they are commenting on or assuming facts they don't have in hand about others' decisions. But there can be an occasion where arriving at a conclusion may be done based on sufficient history and adequate analysis. In the case of Obama negotiating with Iran, if they are able to come to an agreement, it is highly likely it cannot be trusted.

I am not one to state that President Obama is doing this for his legacy. Presidents are frequently accused in their second terms of taking actions because of their "legacy." I think that is just lazy thinking by journalists who want to classify things. Certainly, there is no indication that if an agreement is reached in the next couple of weeks that it will create lasting peace in the region and turn Iran from being a mortal enemy of our country into a friend and future ally. So to what extent would a deal enhance Obama's legacy? What his motivation is in making this agreement is somewhat bewildering and can only be determined by the final outcome.

What we can say at this point is that, whatever the final outcome, we cannot trust it as an agreement for two reasons. The simple reason on its face is that we are negotiating with a partner who has not complied with agreements or international norms since assuming control of the country 36 years ago. More importantly, we cannot even abide by what will be represented to us by our own team in the Obama Administration.

As you all know, a promise of this Administration from the beginning has been that it would be "the most transparent in history." I have been around long enough to know that from the inception of transparency being pushed as a campaign theme we were in trouble. I have found when platitudes like that are foisted upon the public that the opposite usually comes to fruition. Certainly in this case we have seen the reality to be the exact opposite over and over and over again.

The momentous effort to hide information from the American people was characterized by the Administration placing the immense ACA bill on the internet with only two days remaining before the vote to totally reorganize the entire health care sector of our economy. But that was only the beginning.

That was followed by hiding multiple members of the Benghazi staff from Congressional committees. Then the Attorney General completely stonewalled Congress over criminal activities by employees of the IRS. Next Obama appointed a political henchman as IRS Commissioner who soon lied to Congress about Lois Lerner's lost emails that mysteriously were found after a search confirming what we all knew — they were never lost.

This Administration has been so stifling of information flowing to the public that even their chief enablers, the lackey mainstream media, has voiced multiple concerns about getting their Freedom of Information Act requests honored. Matters are so bad even the MSM has griped.

Just this past week, we have seen three new instances of Obama totally disregarding our democracy's rules. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) passed a 331-page bill seizing control of the internet without releasing the rules to the public. It was hilarious to watch members of the chamber's audience cheering the vote of the FCC when none of them no what was included in the document. These are actions typically taken by dictatorships and banana republics. If the rules are beneficial then they should be waving them in everybody's face instead of hiding them.

Then it was discovered that Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, never used an email address that was government operated. Once again a total disregard for the public in a democracy where the people used to control their government.

On Monday, a federal judge excoriated Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its contempt for its legal obligation to disclose documents and then compounding the offense by lying to the courts about its stonewalling. This was almost three years after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was filed requesting documents from the EPA. The judge wrote the EPA "intentionally sought to evade the lawful FOIA request so the agency could destroy responsive documents."

If we ever see the deal with Iran that was negotiated by Obama and his team, the details will be hidden. Obama will accuse the opponents of only wanting to go to war while he has negotiated peace. He will then use his favorite tactic — creating straw men arguments. He does it all the time. He will state unknown people have created actions that are absurdly detrimental to the peace of the world. Of course, who he is referring to will never be identified because they don't actually exist. Then he will attempt to bully his opponents into submission without us ever finding out what are the real elements of the treaty.

This is how Obama is and what he does. This is why it has been leaked that he attempted to figure out how to make it an agreement that does not have to be approved by Congress as all treaties are as dictated by our Constitution. A trade agreement with Colombia must be approved by Congress, so one would think a nuclear arms deal with the most belligerent country on the planet should be so ratified.

Thinking of our now-established history of this president, it is clear we cannot trust any agreement he makes with Iran. We need to be worried.

Comment by clicking here.

Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee.