Iran Deal’s Surprising Supporters


Dozens of retired US admirals and generals and a group of former Iranian political prisoners in the US have both come out in support of the Iran agreement recently. How will the neocons write this off? Will they ignore it?

Ron Paul: Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report. With me today is Daniel McAdams. Daniel, good to see you today.

Daniel McAdams: Good to see you Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul: There’s a bit of an argument going on in the public about the Iran deal, obviously. What will Congress do, are they going to vote it up or down? Will the President win this political thing or will the neocons win and get it stopped? There are troops that have come out in favor of it and they are interesting, because I think they should have a significance, but you’re probably not going to hear about it on the television, because it supports our position in many ways that we should look at this cautiously, but lean toward trying to talk with the Iranians, rather than only trying to threaten them with militarism.

The first group are the former Iranian political prisoners under the Ayatollah, there is a large group of them, they are now in the United States, so probably they had to escape with their lies. Surprisingly, this group they are anti-Ayatollah, but they are pro-Iran. Now, they have come out a significant number and I want to read a short paragraph of their statement on this, because they think that we should go with this and that there is no danger to them, there is no danger to their country and they think it will be an improvement.

This is what their statement was “We believe this agreement would reinforce peace and stability in the Middle East and the world. It will help develop and foster our relationship with the both Iranian and American people which will strongly benefit the interest of both nations. Furthermore, such an agreement will help counter the spread of terrorism within the region and around the world.”

That’s a pretty strong statement and I happen to agree with this, but it seems like that would have more credibility, I think more Americans would listen to this and get a better understanding about this.

Daniel McAdams: You can’t write them off as Iranian agents or people like this, as you pointed out there were people who were political prisoners and dissidents. I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but it seems to me from the words you’ve read they recognize what you’ve said all along, which is an agreement and a deal, and getting rid of sanctions, getting rid of threats as the best way for two countries to grow together, to trade, to get along and if there are changes that are going to be made, the influence certainly will come more from trade, than threats.

Ron Paul: Let’s say if we were in their situation and we were dissidents and we had to escape with our lives, but even though a lot of people once they get out and get to this country, most of them like to stay, because we are still a lot better off than some of these other countries. Also, there are people, if conditions were different, maybe they wouldn’t move back, maybe there are opportunities, maybe they would like to travel back. From my viewpoint what they are saying is they from their viewpoint would be better off in a relationship with their country and they would like that and they also see this as a move toward peace in the Middle East.

Daniel McAdams: If you look at their credentials, obviously most of them are well educated, very accomplished people, they probably realize they would have a comparative advantage, because knowing both systems, obviously knowing language and things; it certainly would be beneficial for them in that way as well.

Ron Paul: How do you think the Bill Crystals of the world would write a letter off like this? Would you want to postulate on what you think they would say?

Daniel McAdams: I think because of the way you framed it and because we recognize these are not people who support the regime in Iran, I think he would do darn as to ignore it, pretend it doesn’t exist and not write it at all.

Ron Paul: Because they don’t want to call attention to it. I think it’s a powerful statement. There is another group that is very interesting, that we in the past have called on, when we want support for non-interventionist position and it reminds me of when it happened in the Presidential campaign when they said my position was terrible, I don’t support the military, of course I got more support from military than anybody else.

The military aren’t automatically for war, they are for peace, they don’t want to deliberately cause war, so they to get in and have to do a lot of fighting and killing, but there is a dozen of retired generals, admirals back the Iran nuclear deal, so this is interesting and I imagine there are a couple of credible military personnel now are saying, which they have in the past, even the past decade military people take a different position.

I doubt that you are going to see this on national television showing what the military are actually saying. This is not a going to endanger our national security.

Daniel McAdams: Indeed and we should say thanks to the from where we got both of these documents, they provide a good service by finding them and putting them up.

The argument of the admirals and generals is from a more national security argument. I think they are trying to be, to outflank the neocons by saying in fact this agreement will prevent them from getting a weapon. I’m not sure that will work, I don’t know that it will, but it’s certainly from their perspective and their background from national security. They are saying our security will be better served from this agreement, than by not having one.

Ron Paul: Yeah and there is one other argument, which we should sort of, I consider it a sick argument or a back up argument, because they say “Ok, we should go ahead and do this, because we know it’s going to be a failure and once we know it’s a failure, we can get the world engaged in this big war that we’re looking for.” You’ve heard that argument, of course.

Daniel McAdams: The neocons love that argument, but I think you prefer probably the argument, that some of our Institute board members Flynt and Hillary Levertt make, which is the deal is good because it is opening up to Iran is good, recognizing that it is a regional powerhouse, that there is an enormous amount of trade that can go on, that would be beneficial to both sides and that it’s just simply the right thing to do, rather than couching it in these terms that they’ll get a bomb or there will be a war.

What I find troubling is some of the people arguing for the agreement say what the neocons say, which is without an agreement, there is going to be war. I honestly think that without an agreement, meaning if the U.S. backs out, if Obama doesn’t get the votes and the U.S. backs out, do you really think the rest of the world is going to put sanctions on again and go back down that road?

Ron Paul: No, this to me is a good thing in that way, but it’s not a disaster if we back out afterwards, because I would think it would wake up more people, because right now we are in the midst of a financial crisis internationally with the devaluation of the yuan and that is getting out of control, it’s been devalued more than expected, it’s playing havoc with stock markets and all.

This is going to drive them further to the East, so if we draw them out and a four other countries say I am going East; I am going to deal with the Iranians and the Europeans, money talks. Business people say maybe there is oil there, there is drilling to be done and who knows maybe the financial interest, if the Iranians are smart enough they would it open up to development by the West and Russia. This, of course, would push away from the dollar and enhance the power of China and Russia. Here we are always arguing we have to punish, punish, punish, the Chinese are fixing their currencies and all this stuff.

I think if we back out on this and the Congress votes it down, I would predict that the other five countries would probably stick with it and go for it and maybe by that time the American people will wake up and change their tune on this.

Daniel McAdams: What’s funny, everyone loved calling you an isolationist, you are an isolationist, but the people who are fighting this deal are the real isolationists, don’t you think?

Ron Paul: Yeah, they are. They are the ones that do it and the sanctions and the whole thing are. Anyway, these are two interesting groups that are now supporting this position that we’ve been pushing for various reasons and the one group of dissidents that support this position, I think those individuals are just pro-Iranian and that is the reason. But what about the people who object to this, who are yelling and screaming there is going to be war and we have to stop them and no options are off the table, I think they are pro-Empire.

You have one group that looks for pro-Iranian relationships with the world and there is an argument by both the dissidents and the military that that is the road to achieve that policy. At the same time, those who object I think really is not subconscious, I think they believe in the Empire status, I believe they want to control natural resources and it’s a power struggle, which is going on for literally the time of all history.

There is no reason in the world, we can’t stop and think about true diplomacy and I say this is a small step, but the best step, otherwise you take a huge step toward more militarism and that we don’t need.

I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report and please come back soon.

This video was published by the Ron Paul Institute.