Gary Samore resigns as Chairman of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI)resigned as its chairman, because he supports the nuclear sellout to Iran. He will be replaced by former United States Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Ct). Samore was formerly an adviser to President Hussein Obama on weapons of mass destruction. This is from the first link.
Mark D. Wallace, the chief executive of the group and a diplomat in the George W. Bush administration, said that the organization’s members had sought to keep an open mind. But after the final terms became clear, “The opposition was nearly unanimous,” he said.
With that move, it was clear that Mr. Samore needed to move on.
“We had an honest discussion that I wouldn’t be able to continue to serve as president if UANI was going to come out against the agreement, since I support it,” Mr. Samore said.
“Nonetheless, I support the work that UANI has done in the past to strengthen sanctions, and I think they will have a role to play in the future to maintain nonnuclear sanctions if the deal goes forward,” he said. (He will continue to serve on the group’s advisory board.)
Though he backs the accord as the most that can be achieved diplomatically, Mr. Samore is skeptical that the agreement will open a new chapter in American-Iranian relations.
“The best you can achieve with diplomacy is delay in the hope that at some point a new Iranian government emerges that is not committed to developing nuclear weapons,” he said.
And if that leadership does not materialize, Mr. Samore acknowledges that Iran might vastly expand its nuclear enrichment program after core elements of the agreement expire in 15 years.
He is also not convinced that Iran will continue to adhere to the accord once economic sanctions are lifted. Even so, he argues, the accord will put the United States in a stronger position to respond than a congressional rejection would.
In other words, Samore favors a deal because (a) Obama is unwilling to employ a military option, (b) he thinks it will buy at least some time, and (c) he hopes that eventually a 'new Iranian government' that is not committed to nuclear weapons will emerge (how that will happen given the repressive Iranian regime and the Obama administration's lack of support for Iran's Greens in 2009 when there was no deal in place is an exercise left to the reader). 'Doubling down on sanctions' is unlikely to be much of an option is this deal goes through. That leaves - you guessed it - military force if we have a President who is then inclined to use it. In any event, Obama will be 'spared' the need to attack his best friends forever in Iran.“We will have bought a couple of years, and if Iran cheats or reneges we will be in an even better position to double down on sanctions or, if necessary, use military force,” Mr. Samore said. “If I knew for certain that in five years they would cheat or renege, I’d still take the deal.”
Seems awfully naive to me.
What could go wrong?