“Lawmakers alarmed over Iranian nuclear windfall,” blares the headline in USA Today.  Oh my, “alarmed”!  Obama is poised to release $150 billion to the Iranians as part of his nuclear “deal.”  What a deal.  His own James Clapper, director of national intelligence, “calls Iran the world’s ‘foremost state sponsor of terrorism,’ citing Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and Houthi insurgents in Yemen.”

But another administration talking head has a more upbeat assessment:

State Department spokesman John Kirby said Iran's support of terrorism "remains a concern," but U.S. policy has been that the nuclear talks will impact only sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program. Terrorism-related sanctions will remain unless Iran ends its support for terrorism, Kirby said.

There's hope that success on the nuclear deal "could lead to other openings with Iran on other issues that could possibly have a positive benefit in terms of their behavior and conduct on a whole range of other security matters in the region," Kirby said.

That's right, “there’s hope.”  No Iranian responses to such carrots in the past 35 years would warrant such self-delusion, but “there’s hope.”

Meanwhile, “Yukiya Amano, chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog ... said ... ‘I think we can issue a report by the end of the year on the ... clarification of the issues related to possible military dimensions’ of Iran's nuclear program.”

Oh goody, “clarification." Do they intend to immolate the Jews this year or next? Please clarify, O Ayatollah.

And “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged Obama to rethink the negotiations.”  “Urged”...there’s forceful language.  Mitch must be afeared the Dems will accuse him of meddling in foreign policy.

Not to worry: a bipartisan – bipartisan! – bill is being introduced:

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., have proposed legislation that would require the United States to confirm that Iranian-backed terrorist organizations "aren't the beneficiaries of newly accessed Iranian funds."

That would be the administration doing the confirming.  And these towering geniuses in “the greatest deliberative body in the world” are involved in the federal budgeting process yet innocent of any knowledge of the concept of fungibility.

Then there are the experts in the think-tanks who aver that the Iranian people will demand that the windfall be spent on good works:

Alireza Nader of the RAND Corp. said Iran's dilapidated public infrastructure and failing health, welfare and education sectors create a public demand for better services and a healthier economy as soon as sanctions are lifted.

Sure, Mr. Nader, the Iranian regime has always shown itself to be exquisitely sensitive to “public demand.”  How does someone like Mr. Nader become an expert on anything at a prestigious think-tank like RAND Corp?

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, a London-based investment analyst, said Iran desperately needs domestic products such as commercial airplanes, information technology and medicines.

"They've been unable to make significant investments for 10 years," Batmanghelidj said. "This is a pragmatic government, and it would be madness to bring all that money back and spend it on a militia fighting in Syria."

“This is a pragmatic government” – of course it is.  The ayatollahs would never do something as stupid as “bring[ing] all that money back and spend[ing] it on a militia fighting in Syria.”

Just who is this “expert” Batmanghelidj?  Last year he wrote an opinion piece for Al Jazeera America entitled “Hassan Rouhani’s savvy nuclear politics.”  Sounds like a real middle-of-the-road kind of guy to me.  History apparently has no lessons for these “experts.”

Why didn’t USA Today just quote the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Jurist Ali Khamenei himself?  Oh, but that would have given their game away.

Henry Percy is the nom de guerre of a writer in Arizona.  He may be reached at saler.50d[at]gmail.com.