By Ron Paul

Last week’s successfully concluded Iran agreement is one of the two most important achievements of an otherwise pretty dismal Obama presidency. Along with the ongoing process of normalizing relations with Cuba, this move shows that diplomacy can produce peaceful, positive changes. It also shows that sometimes taking a principled position means facing down overwhelming opposition from all sides and not backing down. The president should be commended for both of these achievements.

The agreement has reduced the chance of a U.S. attack on Iran, which is a great development. But the interventionists will not give up so easily. Already they are organizing media and lobbying efforts to defeat the agreement in Congress. Will they have enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto of their rejection of the deal? It is unlikely, but at this point if the neocons can force the U.S. out of the deal it may not make much difference. Which of our allies, who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo? Which will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program?

However, what is most important about this agreement is not that U.S. government officials have conducted talks with Iranian government officials. It is that the elimination of sanctions, which are an act of war, will open up opportunities for trade with Iran. Government-to-government relations are one thing, but real diplomacy is people-to-people: business ventures, tourism, and student exchanges.

I was so impressed when travel personality Rick Steves traveled to Iran in 2009 to show that the U.S. media and government demonization of Iranians was a lie, and that travel and human contact can help defeat the warmongers because it humanizes those who are supposed to be dehumanized.

As I write in my new book, “Swords into Plowshares”:

Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.

Let’s not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blowback.

When the Cold War was winding down and the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy to justify enormous military spending, it was decided that Iran should be the latest “threat” to the U.S.. That’s when sanctions really picked up steam. But as we know from our own CIA National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, the stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were all lies. Though those lies continue to be repeated to this day.

It is unfortunate that Iran was forced to give up some of its sovereignty to allow restrictions on a nuclear energy program that was never found to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But if the net result is the end of sanctions and at least a temporary reprieve from the constant neocon demands for attack, there is much to cheer in the agreement. Peace and prosperity arise from friendly relations and trade — and especially when governments get out of the way.

By Tom Purcell

“Did you see that the federal government raked in record tax revenues so far this fiscal year? The country must be doing great!”

“Ah, yes, you speak of the Monthly Treasury Statement which was recently released. It says that the federal government generated nearly $2.5 trillion in revenue through the first nine months of fiscal 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014, through the end of June). That is more tax revenue than our country has seen before, but the Congressional Budget Office just warned that the country is not doing so great!”

“It’s not?”

“In its latest Long-Term Budget Outlook for 2015, the CBO reports that ‘The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years, in the wake of the 2007-2009 recession and slow recovery.’”

“That doesn’t sound so good.”

“The numbers are sizable and can put a Harvard accountant to sleep, but the CBO makes clear that our long-term budget is unsustainable without drastic cost reductions or tax increases. Put simply, our spendthrift ways are continuing to rack up our debt.”

“Sheesh, you sure are depressing.”

“Sorry, but far too many voters don’t have any awareness of this issue. We have to get the dreary facts out there.”

“I’ll try to be strong. Go on.”

“Look, the CBO says the historical average level of publicly held debt over the last 50 years was 38 percent of America’s gross domestic product. But with all the money we borrowed and spent in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and all the money we keep borrowing and spending, our debt-to-GDP ratio has shot up to 74 percent. CBO estimates it will hit 103 percent in 2040.”

“That sounds like a lot of debt.”

“The last time government debt was higher than that was in 1945, when it hit 104 percent of GDP, and 1946, when it hit 106 percent.”

“Well, we had to spend lots of dough to win the big one against Nazi Germany and Japan. But now what are we spending all of our money on?”

“The rising growth in entitlement spending. According to CNS News, Keith Hall, the CBO director, said in written testimony that an aging population combined with rising health-care costs will result in government ‘revenues that fall well short of spending over the long term, producing a substantial imbalance in the federal budget.’”

“That doesn’t sound very encouraging.”

“It gets worse. All of the trillions our government has borrowed are being serviced at record-low interest rates. The Federal Reserve has kept them low since the last economic crisis. When those rates reset to historic norms, our debt-service costs will explode.”

“Next time we talk, remind me to bring bourbon.”

“These are not my opinions, but CBO findings I am sharing. The CBO says that to get back to historical debt levels of 38 percent of GDP, we’d have to increase revenue by 14 percent or cut spending by 13 percent.”

“Well, the economic recovery continues to languish. I don’t see politicians cutting government goodies now that so many voters are enjoying them or raising taxes.”

“Well, Hall said if we don’t resolve the challenge now, we will eventually face a crisis. He said that once government’s creditors begin to doubt our ability to repay our debt, interest rates on the debt will have to increase to entice them to buy it. That is the point at which a fiscal crisis will occur and it will ‘have a substantial negative impact on the country.’”

“With your upbeat attitude, you ought to give motivational speeches at business conferences.”