Alan Dershowitz is Back with Secure Freedom Radio

Renowned Harvard professor emeritus and author of the new book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? is on today’s Secure Freedom Radio. Professor Dershowitz is here to talk all things “ObamaBomb”, including Chuck Schumer, faulty verification and compliance, and the American-Jewish communities’ opposition to this deal. Click here for the audio version.

FG: Welcome back we are very pleased to be joined once again by a guest who we have had the privilege of discussing the Iran deal with on several recent occasions, and now have the chance to do so against the backdrop of an important new book an almost instant book I think it is fair to call it “The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes” by professor Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard University. He has been prolific on this subject in many vehicles and forums and we are delighted to have him back to talk with us about his new book and his current thinking on this deal. Professor, thank you for finding the time to join us.

AD: Thank you it is always a pleasure to be on with you.

FG: You have talked about some of the predictions that president Obama has predicated this deal on and then, in your classical litigator fashion, tore it apart. Talk a little about those if you would quickly.

AG: Well I think this deal is based on the assumption prediction, the role of the dice that it will change Iranian society and by the way I think the president is right. It will change Iranian society but I think it will change it for the worst. I think this with some dissidence who are really opposed to this deal Iranian dissidence because they say by giving this regime 150 or so billion dollars, taking them out of their near bankruptcy, it will simply strengthen their ability to be tyrannical, it will stifle thekind of dissent, it will encourage them to give more weaponry to Hezbollah and Hamas, and by every standard it will make them a worse enemy of the United States, of our allies in the Middle East. I think the president is right that it will have an impact on the Iranian leadership but I think he is wrong predicting the direction that impact will take.

FG: You have mentioned as well that he seems to be banking or rolling the dice that this will reduce the likelihood of war in the region. Describe why you think that unlikely?

AD: Well again I think he is just dead wrong about that. I think the deal increases the likelihood of war. I think that when we kept the military option on the table as George Washington put it in one of his inaugural addresses, “the best way to assure peace is to make sure our enemies know we are prepared for war”, and that was the case during the Obama administration’s first term. But he took the military option off the table. Iranians now do not believe that America is willing or able to engage in a military attack on their nuclear facility. That will encourage them to cheat, they are getting their sanctions lifted, and I think there is every reason to think they will cheat, every reason to believe as the deal moves forward they will get closer and closer to a nuclear weapon and that Israel will not accept that nor will Saudi Arabia. I think the likelihood of war in this area has increased because of this deal. By the presidents own criteria I think this is a bad deal. Remember too, the president promised 24/7 inspection we have now 24 day inspection. You know as a criminal lawyer when I am representing someone who is innocent and has nothing to hide, I say to the police “come right in search please, do it now, don’t delay. I don’t want you to think I hid anything please search me right this minute”. But if you have something to hide you want 24 days to move it around. I can’t imagine any reason why Iran has demanded this 24 day period except to cheat.

FG: The question of whether they will cheat in the relatively near term as well and with the consequence you are concerned about professor Alan Dershowitz mainly that they will take advantage of the preserved nuclear infrastructure and our inability in 24 hour 24 days 24 months to see their covert military sites or other facilities in which this work may be going on really does suggest that we are looking at an Iranian nuclear capability fairly soon in the near future. Talk if you would too about the other component of this, that is the windfall of funding that these guys will get. Elsewhere in the program we have talked about its implications for bad actors in the Middle East, also in our own hemisphere. How serious of a concern should that be particularly to Democrats who are being encouraged to stand with their president?

AD: Well first of all the president has been involved in all kind of name calling against people that are opposed to the deal. The New York Times has been even worse. Basically it accused Congressmen opposed to the deal of duel loyalty, of listening to a foreign leader rather than our Commander and Chief. The Times has to remember that President is not my Commander in Chief, he is not your Commander in Chief. He is only Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. He can’t command Congress what to do. Congress not only has the right but the obligation to listen to foreign leaders if they have sensible things to say. We have listened to Winston Churchill, we have listened to Layfette, we listened to the Prime Minister of Japan, and many Congressmen listen to the Prime Minister of England, David Cameron when he went and lobbied for the deal, so how dare the president or the New York Times accuse anyone of suggesting duel loyalty when all they want to do what is best for the United States. Giving Iran 150 billion dollars may not only be a wrong morally of action but it also might be illegal, because if that money is used to promote genocide, it violates the Anti Genocide Conventions. If that money is being used to ferment and promote terrorism, you become essentially an accessory in promoting terrorism. When you give money to people who you know are terrorists and will be using that money for terrorism some of which against the United States. Lets remember that Iran is responsible for the death of many, many Americans not only in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, but in Iraq by providing opponents of the United States with weapons that were used including improvised weapons to kill American soldiers and maim American soldiers. So now American money is going to be given back to them, money that they have no right to hold. It is like drug money, when it has been fortified you don’t get it back when you make a deal like this. I have made many deals with people charged with a crime. I don’t remember any deal where my client who is accused of drug offenses or other offenses got his money back. That is what the Iranians are getting and they will only use it for ill purpose.

FG: I couldn’t agree more and I think that is a really trenched point, I appreciate you making it. Of course one of the people who has been most aggressively attacked for having come down in opposition to this deal as you have professor Alan Dershowitz is one of your mentees. Now a senior United States Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. What do you make of the things that are particularly being leveled at him in terms of treason. I think they have described him as a traitor?

AD: I wish he was my mentee. I just know him, like him, and admire him, admired his courage in standing up against a bad deal. The reason he is so dangerous to the president, is the president can no longer say “all my opponents are Republican war mongers, neo-cons”, and all of that. Now basically what his surrogates are saying “well what do you expect him to do he is a Jewish Senator from New York. Obviously he is just voting his pocket book, his constituents”. That would be the first time in American history any politician, any elected representative, has listened to his constituents. What the president seems to get is he is the minority here. The people of the United States are overwhelmingly opposed to this deal, the Senate is opposed to this deal, the House is opposed to this deal, many scientists are opposed to this deal. Some are in favor of it some are against. He is in a minority position and if he is the person that has to justify why he is now forcing a deal down the throat of an Congressman opposed to it, of the American people are opposed to it, the verdict is now on him not any of the people he is accusing. The New York Times has been most disappointing, using tropes and language that boarder on bigotry when directed against Congressmen and Senators who honestly disagree with the President’s position. Take me for example in my book The Case Against the Iran Deal, I’m not making any money for taking that position, I’m not running for anything. Doesn’t the president give me the benefit of the doubt that I strongly oppose this deal as a loyal patriotic American? I would oppose this deal if I was Christian, I would oppose this deal if I were Muslim. I would oppose this deal under any circumstances as a Democrat or a Republican. Give me the benefit of the doubt on the merits and answer my arguments. I hereby throw out a challenge to the President and to his administration – debate me on television. Lets have CNN, Fox, NPR, any network on now, conduct some great debates Lincoln style debates. Put up your best debaters that support this deal. Let me and others who oppose this deal make our best case. Let the American people decide, this is a democracy. Our Constitution provides that foreign policy decisions ought to be made, be made jointly, by the legislative and executive branches, not just the executive.

FG: Amen I say bring it on Alan Dershowitz you are in the spirit of the great debaters, one of them and we are delighted to have you with us to help eliminate why this well I think of it as a vote of no confidence really is in order for this deal, and I pray it will be respected by the President and the country. Thank you for your time sir, keep up the great work and we will talk to you soon.