I agree, this is a broken way to discuss Iran.
I thought the timing of the $400mm and the hostages was either incompetence, or perhaps a coverup, but since the $400mm was announced months ago, my suspicion is that Iran dragged their feet, using this as a face saving measure to release hostages.
I heard an interesting debate on the Iran deal that has the GOP up in arms. It was on Intelligence Squared. It featured a few experts, and no one really said we shouldn’t have any agreement, but that this was a bad agreement. I was torn. I couldn’t decide whether this was bad or good, but that we did need an agreement. I felt the “good” side did a slightly better job, but not a great job.
As a side note, the first one was on President Obama usurping the power of Congress. I agree with the votes. He hasn’t, but he has pressed things and Congress has been lax.
My big thought, as I’ve learned a little about this, is that we can’t seem to have a decent conversation about it. Far, far too many people are just fundamentally angry and upset by Iran, and it seems deep rooter. Perhaps this is because of the hostage crisis in the 70s, but it means that we cannot remotely even begin to discuss moving forward.
I’m of a mind we need diplomatic relations, but also that we need Iran to grow an economy. The more prosperous, the less likely they are to risk war, and certainly the less likely that their people risk war without being directly attacked.