John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the nuclear deal with Iran. The article cites an interview on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were Secretary of State Kerry stated that Iran won’t use the money to support terrorism because it isn’t “allowed” to do so. He then clarified that there is nothing about this in the nuclear deal, but that existing U.N. resolutions prohibit Iran from supporting Hezbollah and other terrorists.

The article points out:

But wait! Existing U.N. resolutions also prohibit Iran from producing nuclear bombs. If all it takes to stop Iran is a U.N. resolution, why does the administration think we need the current agreement?

Please follow the link above to Power Line to watch the interview.

The article reports:

Kerry went on to add that Iran has significant domestic needs, including rebuilding its oil infrastructure. He suggested that the mullahs will put the money to such peaceful uses. I agree that some of the windfall will no doubt be spent domestically. But that is the other half of the problem: the billions in cash, plus the economic relief that will continue to flow from the removal of sanctions, will validate the mullahs’ policies and entrench their power. We should be trying to get the mullahs turned out, not helping them to perpetuate their rule.

The problem with Iran going nuclear is that the mullahs are in control of the country. They do not represent a government that is willing to live at peace with all of their neighbors. It is ironic that the Iranian government has done more to unite many of the Arab countries with Israel that diplomacy could ever do.