The legal profession developed an interesting way of thinking about thinking.  To lawyers, thinking comes in two varieties: one that must satisfy a "strict scrutiny" standard, the other, that of mere "reasonableness."  This latter is usually described as a "mirror test": before delivering your argument in front of a judge, try it before a mirror.  If you manage not to fall down laughing at the absurdity of what you are saying, you are good.  You have passed the standard of "reasonableness."  Your argument will do great in the courtroom.

Lawyers and judges are not the only masters of the art of passing patent nonsense for "reasonable"; politicians and the press are pretty good at it, too.  The New York Times' report, "U.S. Lifts Some Sanctions on Iranians before Nuclear Talks," describes — with a perfectly straight face — Obama's "deal" with Iran as having "traded Western sanctions relief in return for Iran's agreement to accept limits on — and international monitoring of — its nuclear program to ensure that it did not try to build a weapon."  By the standards of the New York Times and the Obama (and now the Biden) administration, this is a "reasonable" way to describe the JCPOA.  What was not mentioned — that those "limits" will expire in 2030, letting Iran legally enrich uranium all it wants — renders the "reasonable" argument that the deal will "ensure that [Iran] did not try to build a weapon" laughable.

Or how about this assertion, made after telling us that apparently, just out of the goodness of its heart, "[t]he Biden administration on Thursday lifted sanctions on three former Iranian government officials and two Iranian companies involved in the country's oil industry, a conciliatory gesture days before a potentially decisive round of nuclear talks in Vienna"?  And "there was "absolutely no connection between the sanctions and discussions among several world powers and Tehran."

Was it yet another exercise in laughable "reasonableness," backed up by the simultaneous imposition, for the show of toughness's sake, of obviously far less biting sanctions "on a dozen Iranian individuals, entities and vessels for providing financial support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen"?

Those who are more inclined to view Iran's nuclear program as threatening enough to warrant a "strict scrutiny" approach are skeptical.  "Robert Einhorn, an arms control expert at the Brookings Institution, said that the timing of the U.S. announcements suggested a connection to the nuclear issue, and that it might be a signal of American flexibility."  Though to think of it, isn't "flexibility" a mere politically correct moniker for surrender to Iran's demands?

The selling of the Iran deal to the public reminds me of the great scene in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, where two crooks who dubbed themselves the king and the duke got themselves into full confidence of a family in a village they were passing by, pretending to be English heirs of its recently deceased member, and now debate what to do with his property.  The duke is happy with just slipping out with the ready cash; the king, indignant at such lack of imagination, insists on selling the estate at the auction, and only then getting out.  The duke is worried that their cover may be blown since the village doctor is openly laughing off their imitation of an English accent and manner of speech.  "Well, the king he talked him blind; so at last he give in, and said all right, but said he believed it was blamed foolishness to stay, and that doctor hanging over them.  But the king says:'Cuss the doctor!  What do we k'yer for HIM?  Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side?  And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?'"

I was not present in the Oval Office when President Obama and his advisers, Ben Rhodes undoubtedly present, discussed how to sell the Iran deal to the public, but I doubt that the Obama-Rhodes argument differed much from Mark Twain's king's.  To a lawyer (and Obama went to a law school, after all), the use of nonsensical, "reasonable" argument is natural; besides, Obama, ably assisted by Rhodes, had "all the fools in town [of Washington] on [his] side."  The New York Times' recent report confirms yet again that Obama's method of defending the Iran deal by a "reasonable" — i.e., laughable — argument has been happily adopted by the Biden administration.  That the press still describes the JCPOA as "limiting" Iran's ability to make a bomb tells us that "all the fools in town" are still on Obama/Biden's side.  The "doctors" — the people who think, who can subject Biden's argument to "strict scrutiny" — have been voted out, or are silenced by the press.  What a shame.  And what a tragedy...

Image: Chickenonline via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.