Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

pew report black

Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

Van Hollen: Iran Deal ‘Big Setback’, But ‘Hope They’ll Move Forward and Sign It’

Listen to Article

Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s lukewarm endorsement of the latest Iran nuclear understanding reveals the same reflexive faith in paper promises that has repeatedly endangered American security and, by extension, the Second Amendment. When a sitting senator admits the deal is a “big setback” yet still urges Tehran to “move forward and sign it,” he underscores a bipartisan Beltway habit of treating rogue regimes as rational actors who will honor signatures rather than as ideological adversaries who view negotiations as pauses in their weapons programs. For gun owners, the lesson is straightforward: every time Washington underestimates threats abroad, domestic calls for “common-sense” restrictions on the very tools citizens would need in a genuine national emergency grow louder.

The Iran MOU’s loopholes on enrichment timelines and inspection access mirror the same logic that produced the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the push for universal background checks—namely, the belief that determined actors will comply once they put pen to paper. History shows otherwise; Iran has already enriched uranium past civilian thresholds while inspectors played catch-up, just as criminals ignore magazine limits and registration schemes. A nuclear-capable Iran raises the specter of regional proliferation that could reach non-state actors, increasing the probability that future administrations will cite “extraordinary circumstances” to curtail private firearm ownership under emergency powers already codified in statute.

Ultimately, the Van Hollen soundbite crystallizes why pro-2A citizens must treat foreign-policy weakness and domestic gun-control enthusiasm as two sides of the same coin. Both rest on the premise that law-abiding Americans should surrender capability in exchange for promises from people or regimes who have never demonstrated reciprocal restraint. The remedy remains consistent: maintain a robust nuclear deterrent abroad and an armed citizenry at home, because neither parchment nor policy will protect either when deterrence fails.

Share this story