Voice Of Post

Mitt Romney Obama 'no deal' Iran, Are there any fans of President Obama's foreign policy record — other than our nation's adversaries, that is? Democrats have been noticeably quiet on the subject; Republicans have been appropriately brutal. But the president could silence critics like me and even qualify for a Profile in Courage Award by doing the right thing on Iran: Walk away from a flimsy nuclear agreement.

I say courage because signing an agreement — any agreement — would undoubtedly be a political home run. The news media would repeatedly feature the signing ceremony. The coverage would rehearse the long and tortured history between our two countries and exalt at the dawn of a new era. The Iranian pooh-bahs would appear tame and responsible. The president would look, well, presidential.An agreement would also boost the prospects for Hillary Clinton: achievement by association.

Walking away from all that would be courageous. It would also be right.Agreements with tyrants and fanatics have very short shelf lives. Case in point, our agreements with North Korea, inked by presidents from both political parties. In 1985, North Korea acceded to the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in 1991, it signed the South-North Joint Declaration on Denuclearization. In 1993, however, the CIA determined that North Korea had likely already separated enough fissile material for one to two nuclear bombs. Then in 1994, North Korea signed the Agreed Framework to dismantle its nuclear capabilities in exchange for gifts of fuel oil, low-grade reactors and normalized diplomatic relations. In 2002, North Korea admitted to a secret program to enrich uranium, reopened a previously shuttered reactor, and expelled the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the country. In 2003, North Korea officially withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Today, North Korea not only boasts nuclear weaponry and long-range missiles, it also exports its technology to some of the world's worst actors.

The agreements with North Korea didn't work. And the North Korea agreements looked tougher than what we are hearing about from the Kerry negotiations: The North Korea deal required complete dismantling of the country's enrichment capabilities and had no explicit expiration date. A soft nuclear agreement with a rogue state? Fool us twice, shame on us.

The president claims that during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress, he didn't offer a solution. Maybe we read different texts. But in case there is any misunderstanding, here is what I heard Netanyahu say: Walk away from a Swiss-cheese agreement; institute even more punitive and crippling sanctions than have been imposed; and remove those sanctions only when Iran agrees to dismantle its nuclear enrichment capability and to submit to unrestricted inspections. Finally, if contrary to reason and expectation those sanctions don't bring Iran to its senses, prepare for a kinetic alternative.

After all the brickbats heaved by the White House and its friends toward Israel's prime minister, perhaps we should all consider the fact that he and his nation have a particularly good reason to want to get the right answer on Iran: Its leaders have called for the elimination of Israel and Jews. What he has to say on the subject could well be more well-informed than that, say, from Jon Stewart, or even from an overly agitated Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

It would take uncommon courage for President Obama to scotch a deal with Iran. The Iranians undoubtedly know this, of course, which is why they have been such reluctant, resistant and effective negotiators. Turning down a weak deal may be too much to expect from a president who walked back from his own red line in Syria, but we can hope.