Speaking last week about the newly concluded agreement/treaty of P5+1, Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kans.) noted, "This agreement is the worst of backroom deals.  In addition to allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program, missile program, American hostages, and terrorist network, the Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the 'inspection' of one of the most important nuclear sites – the Parchin military complex. Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review."

"Secret annexes" are not new in the world of diplomacy.  However, in modern history, they are most associated with the failed alliance systems of 19^th- and early 20^th-century Europe.  The Concert of Europe, rife with backroom as well as "front room" deals, was initiated in Europe by Klemens von Metternich, representing Austria, with the collaboration of the brilliant Maurice de Talleyrand of France.  The main idea was to bulwark monarchic power in Europe.  Later, its successor, called the Alliance System, was jump-started by Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian master manipulator.  This system is considered by historians as contributing to the occurrence of WWI.

Lack of integrity was the key to the failure of the Alliance System in Europe.  The old Alliance System broke down because of power struggles between and among the signees.  Further, with the uncovering of secret annexes in that system, it became increasingly apparent that the parties to the deals could not be trusted.

In the present treaty, we have a coalescence of interests among the great powers.  Although the U.S. has been dubbed the world's only "superpower," the U.K., France, China, and Russia have sufficient power among them to be considered the most formidable combination of nation-states that can be assembled in our world.  The U.N. Security Council thus can be considered to have rubber-stamped this agreement.  Was there any dissent from the temporary members of the Security Council?  Answer: there was none.  The resounding official "amen" to this so-called deal within the U.N. Security Council should send shivers of concern down the spines of all those who see dissent and differences as normal and desirable.

With the U.S being on the same page with such anti-democratic countries as Iran, Russia, and the People's Republic of China, a question arises: are we witnessing a giant step forward in a plot to overthrow America as a constitutional republic?  Is our participation in and leadership of a unanimous process with these evil regimes a new form of "democratic stealth," the counterpart of the monarchic stealth of Bismarck in the years before WWI?  If there are secret annexes, then from whom are these secrets to be withheld?  If they are to be withheld from Congress or from the American people (for our own good, of course), then their existence is a repudiation of our national prerogative to have a free and open debate.  And if the Senate cannot vote directly on this as a treaty to be passed only with a two-thirds vote of that body (as required by the U.S. Constitution), is that not a repudiation of our national sovereignty?

This treaty means that the PRC and Russia and the U.N. will have the last say about the survival of the and military and economic posture to be taken by the U.S.  To those who are informed, this is exactly the globalist position of the left wing of the Democratic Party.  It is invidious anti-Americanism at its worst.

But the globalists keep insisting: this is a matter of peace.  To get peace, you need to make risky agreements among non-democratic parties.  If America alone must dictate the terms for progress toward peace, there will never be peace.  The price of peace is dealing with bad actors and even some so-called stealth.

In order to show that the globalists are not only naïve, but also sinister, we need to look at history.  After WWI, the U.S. participated in various agreements outside the League of Nations structure, since we were not members of that body.  The Washington Naval Conference was held in 1921, and the U.S., the U.K., France, Italy, and Japan agreed to a ratio for the maintenance of the size of their respective naval systems.  Japan, of course, ignored the arrangement almost from the first month after signing on.  Then, later, Japan was found by the Lytton Commission of the League to have been the invader of Manchuria, which they renamed Manchukuo.  Japan was incensed by the condemnation and left the League.  And the U.S. took the lead in creating the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, signed in 1928 by 62 nations, rejecting war altogether (although including the caveat that war was permitted if defensive).  This too proved a farce since, following the pact, aggressions against League of Nations member-states increased to such a degree that World War II ensued.  Thus, nation-states, acting from the brilliant premise later articulated by the great philosopher Rodney King – "Why can't we all just get along?" – created an atmosphere of complacency that contributed to world unpreparedness and World War II.  It is immoral to lend oneself to arrangements that encourage bad actors to act.

So the deal with Iran is in some sense similar to the Alliance System in that it is among nation-states.  Like the Alliance System, it has secret clauses.  It is in some sense like the post-WWI deals in that it was created outside the international body that might be expected to be the proper venue for handling matters of this type.  We are also repeating the stupidities of the 1920s by concluding a deal with a party that has no intention of keeping the treaty.  Further, constitutional principles have been violated by not having the Senate vote on this front and center.  The vote in the U.N. preceded a vote by the Congress.  U.S. national sovereignty has thereby been attacked from within.

If the above parallels are apt, then we shall see that the deal is doomed to failure by (1) the secret clauses, (2) the lack of integrity of one or more parties to the deal, (3) the helplessness of the international collectivity of states to enforce the agreement, (4) the propensity of nation-state goals to trump peace in favor of war, and (5) the sinister plotting of power brokers in high places who believe that their personal power will be enhanced by following a path to war.  The deal is wrong in conception, and it is doomed to be broken and/or abused in practice.