Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: All right. I know, folks, there are a lot of people troubled and trying to deny the obvious for a host of understandable reasons. But the old saying, I guess, the old phrase is, “It is what it is.” Iran nuclear deal. It is what it is. It is horrible. It is unmistakably, inescapably disastrous for the United States. There is no other way to sugarcoat it.

By the way, greetings. Here’s the phone number, for you who want to line up and get ready to appear on the program. It’s 800-282-2882, and if you want to send an e-mail — we check ’em, as you know, I reference them often — it’s ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Now, I know a lot of you are hoping against hope that the things you’ve heard about this that are bad for America are not true. I know you’re hoping that some of the analysis of the deal that you may have seen or heard, that describes how really bad it is, is just maybe a little partisan, really isn’t true. Because no matter what else Obama has done, and his party, no matter what else they have done with domestic policy, surely, you’re saying to yourself, they would not sell the United States out to the Iranians. You want to hold on to that, I understand it.

You want to grasp that, embrace that, and you really don’t want to believe — some of you — really don’t want to believe that what’s happened here has happened. But it has, folks. There isn’t a mushy middle on this. It’s bad. When you have the Iranian president celebrating and claiming victory, and you don’t hear the American president using the word “victory;” when you have the Iranians dancing in the streets and the Ayatollah Khamenei claiming victory over all else, Iranians are not going to go there if it’s anything less than that. Even for the Iranians to claim a victory ought to give everybody an indication of what’s happened here, that there’s a winner and a loser, and they clearly believe that we are the loser.

And why would that be the case? ‘Cause the Iranians have been buttressed here. There’s any number of places you can look, any number of credible sources you can look to have it confirmed. And even on the Democrat Party side, the Democrat Party’s caught between a rock and a hard place here because they desperately do not want to deny their young president his legacy. On the other hand, they can’t engage in a public display of support and victory for this thing because it doesn’t warrant that so they’ve gotta play it pretty close to the vest.

Now, I can do this any number of ways today, and I’ll tell you what I’ve decided, I’m just gonna run through some of the salient points of this rather rapidly just to give you an idea, and then we’ll get into individual reaction and an analysis piece. Compare what the Drive-By Media is saying, say, for example, USA Today and the Associated Press. Of course they’re going every direction possible to praise Obama and to spread his version of the truth of this.

And then there’s another aspect of this way over here, and that’s the Corker bill in the Senate. There are a lot of people, “Well, you know, maybe we can stop it, maybe we can stop it in the Senate.” Well, not really, folks, because the way the Corker bill has been written, it’s almost impossible to stop it, which I will also endeavor to explain as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.

And for those of you who acknowledge and agree that this is a disaster, that it is inexplicably ruinous, and you’re asking, “Why would Obama do it?” I’m gonna explain that to you, too, on the program. I did yesterday, and I’ll repeat myself and add some things to it.

But first from the Times of Israel, David Horovitz: “16 Reasons Nuke Deal is an Iranian Victory and a Western Catastrophe — Has Iran agreed to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections, an end to R&D on faster centrifuges, and the dismantling of its key nuclear sites? No, no, and no.

“1. Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program — to come clean on its violations — in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations? No.”

The Iranian regime has not been required, as a condition of the deal or otherwise, to disclose any of their previous military dimensions of the nuclear program. If they’ve not even been made to disclose them, there is no way they can be made to have dismantled them. They haven’t even admitted what they have been doing on the military side, and our deal with them doesn’t force them to. The military side of what the Iranians have been doing has been ignored and exempted, which is where all of this is actually taking place.

“2. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment, including thousands of centrifuges spinning at its main Natanz enrichment facility? No. The deal specifically legitimizes enrichment under certain eroding limitations. 3. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert, not dismantle the facility, under a highly complex process.

“Even if it honors this clause, its commitment to ‘no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran’ will expire after 15 years,” which, there’s that number again, 15 years, after which time there are no limitations on practically anything, and if they’re ready to go nuke, they can, and they will do so long before that because the deal actually is written in such a way as to hasten nuclear development.

“4. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow? No. (Convert, not dismantle.) 5. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development? No. 6. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges that will enable it to break out to the bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case? No.” It has not been required to stop that research, nor has it been required to stop that development.

“The deal specifically legitimizes ongoing R&D under certain eroding limitations.” Meaning that there are limitations now that get weaker over time. The Obama deal “specifically provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast ‘IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades’ as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will ‘commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.'”

Now, you’re hearing Obama saying there’s no way they can cheat. You’re hearing him say they have no pathway to a nuclear bomb. Folks, it just isn’t true. They have the pathway that they’ve always had. You can even look at the body language. You look at the body language of John Kerry as he goes out. He’s got deer in the headlights eyes. He’s got sheepish sort of slumped-over body posture. And the Iranians are standing tall and erect and happy. It’s obvious what has happened here.

“7. Has the Iranian regime been required to submit to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclear-related activity? No. Instead, the deal describes at considerable length a very protracted process of advance warning and ‘consultation’ to resolve concerns.” Meaning, the Iranians have continued to conduct negotiations the way these negotiations have gone. And what these negotiations have seen is the Iranians objecting to this so we cave, and they object to that, and we cave, and they object to this, and we cave, and they object to that — and this is what you can’t believe. And I don’t want to believe any of this.

This is hard to stomach. It’s hard to accept. It doesn’t make any sense to you. But it’s exactly what happened. Whenever the Iranians had an objection to something, we hemmed and hawed, maybe took a couple weeks or a couple months but we eventually caved on it, because we wanted a deal, just like we wanted Obamacare. Folks, the evidence of the last six and a half years does not argue that this is a good deal for this country. And the evidence of the last six and a half years does not argue that Obama’s telling the truth about it.

The evidence of the last six and a half years, take a look at our economy, take a look at the stimulus, take a look at Obamacare, take a look at anything that this Regime has done, look at illegal immigration, the flooding the zone of our Southern border with minors, illegal aliens, Obama still hasn’t called the Steinle family in San Francisco, still has not. Even the Washington Post is making mention of that. It’s like Pascal said in The Pensees, paraphrasing: it’s much easier to believe that something that has happened will happen again than it is to believe that something that’s never happened will happen.

Well, we’ve seen throughout the six and half years in domestic policy the outright assault on this nation’s economy and health care system and immigration system. Why would foreign policy differ?

Add to this you know — whether you want to admit it or not — that Obama is no friend of Israel. Add to it that in addition to being no friend of Israel, he is friendly with Arab nations. Logic requires us to suspend our hope and accept what’s happened here. It can still be stopped, but the Corker deal is not the way it’s gonna happen. That’s so frustrating, you can’t believe — and you won’t believe that, either, when it’s explained.

“8. Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations, to ensure that the international community can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout to the bomb?” Again, the answer is, “No.” But let’s take a look at that question: “Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations…?”

Doesn’t that question sort of assume that the Iranians are gonna violate? Wouldn’t the smart money be put down on the bet that the Iranians are going to violate? Even though they’re big winners, they’re still gonna violate. It is who they are, and “Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations…? No.” There’s no procedure for dealing with them. “9. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its arming, financing and training of the Hezbollah terrorist army in south Lebanon?”

That wasn’t even on the table, folks.

That wasn’t even discussed.

There wasn’t a syllable of that mentioned. Why in hell not? You would think that the United States of America, the lone superpower in the world, would hold all the cards in any kind of a negotiation like this. On the one hand you have us, and through us, every other nation must go to achieve however it defines superpower status. Over here you’ve got the Iranians, who desperately want superpower status, desperately want an Iranian nuclear weapons program. They want it badly. Everybody knows they want it.

If we’re in the business of granting concessions in order to get them to stop — if we don’t want them to get a nuclear weapon — why in the world do we not demand that they stand down funding Hezbollah and other satellite terrorist organizations? We didn’t even bring it up! It wasn’t even on the table. “10. Has the Iranian regime been required to surrender for trial the members of its leadership placed on an Interpol watch list for their alleged involvement in the bombing, by a Hezbollah suicide bomber, of the AMIA Jewish community center offices in Buenos Aires in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 85 people?”

Nope. Not even on the table. This kind of issue was not even discussed. The Iranians were not forced to admit to or refrain from further engaging in any terrorist activity. It was not on the table, because our president wanted a deal. “11. Has the Iranian regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated ‘cultural centers’ in South America from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks? No.” No, no, no, and no. And any question like this is answered “no,” because no question like this — no topic, no subject — was ever on the table.

“12. Has the Iranian leadership agreed to stop inciting hatred among its people against Israel and the United States and to stop its relentless calls for the annihilation of Israel? No.” That was not on the table. “14. Does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced Iran to the negotiating table? Yes.” (chuckles) The sanctions are finished. They’re over with. There are no more sanctions. Iran is a clear winner, and that’s why they are using the word “victory” in their response to it.


RUSH: Here is via translator (so we trust the translator is telling us the truth), the Iranian “president,” Hassan Rouhani.

ROUHANI: (via translator) What mattered the most was the steadfastness and patience and resistance shown by the courageous nation of Iran, and today with the grace of God, it has been a year of steadfastness and resistance and at the same time brought about victory.

RUSH: There you have it. Listen to that. “What mattered the most was the steadfastness and patience and resistance shown by the courageous nation of Iran, and today with the grace of God, it has been a year of steadfastness and resistance and at the same time brought about victory.” Nothing in there about, “We’re so happy that we have come to a mutual understanding with the United States of America. We no longer wish death to America.

“We are eager and happy to move forward for a safer and more peaceful world!” No, no, no, no. There’s none of that. The Iranians are out doing a victory dance. They hung in there. They were tough. They were steadfast, and they’ve got victory. Now, I should also point out that the Islamic Republic of Iran has posted the English text of the deal. We haven’t done that yet. Not that I have seen. Mr. Snerdley, have you seen it?

(interruption) It could have happened since I last checked that we’ve posted the deal, but I’m not sure. But the Iranians have, anyway. In the deal, the Islamic Republic of Iran affirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. They admit to this. So we now have the challenge of, “Is that who we want to believe? Is that what we’re gonna rely on, to take solace and have faith in all this?”


RUSH: I want to add something to these, “16 Reasons the Nuclear Deal Is an Iranian Victory and a Western Catastrophe.” All 16 of these reasons as advanced by David Horovitz in The Times of Israel — all 16 of them — are things Obama ensured us that would be red lines that he would insist on in any deal, and he ended up not getting any of them, and it’s one of the reasons those 16 are mentioned, some of them. Because these are the elements of the deal Obama assured us from the get-go that he would not agree to.

It’s just like the red line he drew for Syria.

They crossed it numerous times to the point they erased it as though it was never there. Now, some of the things that are in there about disavowing Hezbollah, those were not things Obama insisted on. They were never even mentioned, and those should have been. Folks, I think about this and I’m literally stunned! In the past ten years, whenever we have discussed the concept, the prospect of the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon, it’s always been and the framework of, “What president would be the one to stop it? What president is not gonna let this happen?”

It became an aspect of many people’s decision on who to vote for. I remember running around listening to people, “George W. Bush will never, never let it happen. The Iranians are never gonna get a nuclear weapon! I can’t imagine Bush leaving office and the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon.” For various other Republican candidates in future elections, the same kind of thing was discussed. But regardless, the context of the situation was always, “Which candidate is gonna stand up?

“Which would be the best candidate to ensure the Iranians don’t get a nuclear weapon?’ It was never discussed as a prospect that the Iranians would and who would be the best president to manage that, and yet that is what has happened. We’ve cleared the decks for the world’s state sponsor of terrorism to eventually nuke up on the pretext that we — the pretext that Obama and his administration — are the best and the smartest and the brightest to manage this reality over the next bunch of years. And don’t forget something.

If there are still some of you holding out, not wanting to believe the naysayers, not wanting to believe the detractors — if there are some of you desperately clinging to the hope that what Obama’s saying is true, that there’s no way they’re gonna get a nuclear weapon — I want you to remember something. Way back last year, and it may be a little further ago than that, when we first became aware that the deal contained a period of time after which the Iranians would be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, have a nuclear bomb, so to speak.

And that period of time — depending on the date we were discussing — was anywhere from five to 15 years. There was even a point in time where the administration acknowledged this, or people speaking for the administration acknowledged it. I’m going back 12, maybe 18 months now. What they said is, “Yes, but it’s during that period of time that we will exercise our superior intelligence and persuasion, and we will instruct the Iranians that it would be a mistake to ever weaponize nuclear energy!”

Remember all of that? If I have to, I will go back to the archives of my own website to produce it. I really… I don’t know how long ago it was. Things like this, some of it seems like it happened yesterday. My memory is that this happened coming up on a year ago, sometime last fall, heading toward the end of the year. I’m not exactly sure when, but I know it happened. I know that we were first media aware of that in the deal that was on the table. It might have been around the time Netanyahu came for his joint speech to Congress on this.

We were first made aware that there’s a period of time under which after the deal would have been signed that the Iranians can continue to develop nuclear weaponry, that they won’t be able to… They’ll continue to develop it. They won’t be able to legally doing it for whatever it was, 10 or 15 years, and when people first heard that, they were shocked. “You mean you’re negotiating a deal where they do get nuclear weapons?” And the answer was, “Yes, it’s inevitable! Nobody can stop them.

“We’re not gonna have boots on the ground in Iran. We’re not gonna launch any weapons. We’re not gonna let Israel do it. Therefore, it’s inevitable they’re gonna get a nuclear weapon. What we have to do is manage it and use our artful persuasion and our superior communication skills and our great speeches and whatever the heck else to persuade them in that period of time that it would be a mistake to weaponize their nuclear energy program.” I remember when that first happened, the reaction was shock and dismay all across the country.

Because always, up until that time, the discussion/the premise was always denying Iran a nuclear weapon. Then for the first time ever, it was this administration which put forth and put out there the idea that such a thing was inevitable. So, folks, there’s… (sigh) I mean, the common-sense thing here to do is to believe the naysayers because they are right. It has been set up for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon and for us to manage it. Let me give you a point here.

This is a piece from an e-mail sent out by a man named Omri Ceren, and he is a journalist in the region that has been following this as closely as anybody follows any subject. The latest e-mail he sent out contains four essential points. One is, “The Iranian nuclear program will be placed under international sponsorship for R&D.” The source for this is none other than the AP, the “Administration” Press. “A few weeks ago the AP leaked parts of an annex confirming that a major power,” so far unidentified, “would be working with the Iranians to develop next-generation centrifuge technology at the Fordow underground military enrichment bunker.

“Technically the work won’t be on nuclear material, but the AP noted that ‘isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium.’ Technically the work will not be on nuclear material, but the AP noted that isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and could be quickly engineered to enrich uranium.” Well, this is what I mean by remembering what Obama and his administration said that they were gonna “manage” all of this.

That the inevitability of Iran getting a nuclear weapon couldn’t be denied, and we’re gonna manage this. Well, it’s right here in the deal: A major power will be working with the Iranians to develop next generation centrifuge technology. They’re not getting rid of any centrifuges. Well, they’re holding onto a third of them. They’re gonna get rid of two-thirds, and then we’re gonna monitor what they do with their remaining centrifuges, or somebody is. “The administration had once promised Congress that Iran would be forced to dismantle its centrifuge program,” but that’s not part of the deal.

“The Iranians refused, so the administration conceded that the Iranians would be allowed to keep their existing centrifuges;” so we caved, as we did on every item they refused. The Iranians refused. So the Regime conceded that the Iranians would be allowed to keep their existing centrifuges. “Now the international community,” this unnamed major power, “will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology” and the centrifuge program. “And since the work will be overseen by a great power, it will be off-limits to the kind of sabotage that has kept the Iranian nuclear program in check until now.”

Meaning, it’s gonna be tough to corrupt this thing because there’s gonna be a witness on hand at all times to see how the Iranians are doing. Then it goes on to point out: “The sanctions regime will be shredded… The Lausanne fact sheet” promised that sanctions “will remain in place under the deal,” but they’re not in the deal. “That turns out to have been false. Instead the administration will redefine non-nuclear sanctions as nuclear, so that it can lift them.” It’s incredible!

We’re doing heavy lifting to get rid of the sanctions on the Iranian regime! “The Iranians are boasting that sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank, NIT Co., the National Iranian Oil Company, and 800 individuals and entities will be lifted.” We’ve had sanctions on individuals, including one of their number one bad guys who personally is responsible for the death of countless Americans in Iraq. We’re lifting sanctions on this guy in addition to sanctions on the country. “The US collapsed on the arms embargo,” as well.

“Just a week ago General Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ‘under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.’ Now multiple outlets have confirmed that the embargo on conventional weapons will be lifted no later than five years from now.”

And, finally: “The US collapsed on anytime-anywhere inspections.” I don’t care what you hear Obama or Kerry saying. “The IAEA will get to request access to sensitive sites, the Iranians will get to say no, and then there will be an arbitration board that includes Iran as a member. This concession is particularly damaging politically and substantively because the administration long ago went all-in on verification. The original goal of the talks was to make the Iranians take physical actions that would prevent them from going nuclear if they wanted to: dismantling centrifuges, shuttering facilities, etc. The Iranians said no to those demands, and the Americans backed off. The fallback position relied 100% on verification.”

So we demand they dismantle here, dismantle there. They said no. Our fallback, okay, then we demand on site, any time, anywhere inspections of what you’re doing. We didn’t get it. We do not have any time, anywhere inspections. “Yes the Iranians would be physically able to cheat, the argument went, but the cheating would be detected because of an anytime-anywhere inspection regime.” But that’s not in the deal. There is no any time, anywhere inspection. And the real damning aspect of this is the original plan, the hardliner plan of ours was to demand they shut down the centrifuge program and dismantle them and to get rid of every other facility, shutter the facilities that have anything to do with producing nuclear weapons. They said no.

Our counter was any time, anywhere inspections. Acknowledging the idea, acknowledging the likelihood they were gonna cheat, that they wanted to cheat. It’s not complicated here. We tell them, “You will not produce nuclear weapons under the terms of this agreement.” They said “no.” When we tell them “you must shut down your centrifuges and you must dismantle your other facilities,” we are telling them “you will not develop nuclear weapons.” They said “no.”

We said, “Okay. Then we demand any time, anywhere inspections,” because we knew what they wanted to do. We know what they want. They want a nuclear weapon. Our fallback was we get to come in and inspect any time, anywhere, on a dime’s notice. But we didn’t get it. They’re claiming victory. I wish it weren’t the case, folks. I wish this were not true. But it is.


RUSH: I found it. It was in April. It was not last winter. It was an Eli Lake column, story at Bloomberg. “Obama Kept Iran’s Short Breakout Time a Secret.” It begins this way: “The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb. But the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.

“Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday –” this is back in April of this year “– Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the US has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: ‘Oh quite some time.’ He added: ‘They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the … R&D work. If you put that together it’s very, very little time to go forward. That’s the 2-3 months.'” Which is what Netanyahu was saying.

Iran was telling the truth back in April. Back in April is when John Kerry produced his fact sheet, and the Iranians said they hadn’t agreed with any of what Kerry said they had agreed to. But Obama and Kerry said that they were just saying that for public consumption, that they had agreed, but the Iranians had to save face with their people. They were denying that they’d agreed to anything, but Kerry and Obama were assuring us the Iranians agreed to all these things. But we know now today the Iranians never did agree with any of these things.

At the time I remember we joked on this program about not knowing which regime to believe here, which of these regimes is telling us the truth. Do you realize what a question that is, who’s lying to us? Our own Regime or the Iranian regime? And it turns out the Iranian regime was telling the truth. And it was Obama and Kerry that were lying for public consumption. The Iranians, it seems like they have been telling the truth throughout this entire period of negotiations. But, look, the end of the day the bottom line’s the bottom line. All of these demands that Obama classified as red lines now and then are things we caved on.

And so now we are left with why. It’s the same old question that we ask about practically everything this administration does. Why would they want to tear down the American culture? Why would they want to ravage American society? Why would they want to destroy the court system? Why this? Why that? Why would they want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon in either three months or ten years or ever? Why would they be okay with that? And there is, sadly, an answer.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This