Thursday, August 6, 2015
Concerns about the Iran nuclear deal
I think the following are legitimate concerns:
1. U.S. intelligence officials report that Iran is already sanitizing is controversial nulcear plant at Parchin. (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/iran-already-sanitizing-parchin-nuclear-site-intel-warns)
2. The IAEA chief tells Congress they cannot see the secret side deals they have with Iran.(http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-chief-fails-reassure-us-senators-iran-deal-223150057.html;_ylt=AwrC1Cp.0cJVyRsApzjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--)
3. The President admits that Iran may use the funds they are about to receive to fund terror groups.(http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admits-unfrozen-iran-cash-fund-terror-164816905.html)
4. Secretary Kerry admits the Iranians may use the conventional weapons made available by the nuclear deal to kill Americans or Israelis. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-iran-may-kill-americans-or-israelis_1000220.html)
A final concern I have which I have heard no one address is, What happens in 2030 when all the terms of this deal expire? It seems to me that in all likelihood, Iran will richer and stronger, and if they haven't already, able to quickly make an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It also seems to me that at best, all this deal does is kick the can a little farther down the road. Maybe the hope is that the people will overthrown the regime by then. But what if they don't? Jihadis are patient people. Waiting 15 years to get a bomb, free and clear, is no big deal to them, as long as they eventually get it. I am concerned about what kind of world my grandchildren may have to live it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm certainly no expert on this type of agreement, but what I don't get it this. People have been saying for years Iran is a year away from getting a nuke. They are on a path to having nukes. So now we have this agreement and they still say Iran is on a pathway to a nuke, despite many nuclear scientists saying otherwise. Putting aside any trust issue, even if this is just kicking the can down the road 15 or 20 years, it seems to me it beats them having a bomb next year. I would also think further negotiations could take place later on. Do we really want to just use force to get our way? It appears that's what several senators want. There is nothing in this agreement that makes us reduce our military budget or might. If Iran carries on and middle fingers this agreement, our military capability is still there for the next POTUS to use if that's what is needed.
The idea that the choice is between this agreement and war is a straw man. The only person I've heard describe it that way in the president. Another alternative would be ratcheting up the sanctions.
I suppose, but it seems to me we ratcheted up sanctions a few years ago and got others to join us, yet Iran just kept plugging along. How much longer do you think China and Russia would cooperate (assuming they have been so far)? The deal in getting these other countries to participate in sanctions was to get Iran to the bargaining table. Well, it seem to work and these other countries seem to think the deal is doable and prevents Iran from getting nukes.
The good news is in a year and a half President Trump will get Iran to toe the line.
The fact that the sanctions got them to the bargaining table proved that the Iranians could be made to compromise by sanctions. We should have pressed them even harder with even tougher sanctions to get a long-term deal that allows us to inspect anytime-anywhere. If they refused to agree to it, then we should have just walked away. We should always negotiate from the position of strength. The truth was, they needed a deal more than we did. But we gave the impression that we would do practically anything to get some kind of a deal. This showed great weakness. These people take advantage of weakness. The only thing they respect is superior strength. I'm glad Ash Carter has made it clear that the military option has never been taken off the table.
http://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/8-3-The-real-facts-on-the-Iran-nuclear-deal-1.final_.pdf
This article is more of a political argument for the deal than a statement of facts about the deal. The president keeps trying to sell it on the basis that the alternative is war. That, in and of itself, causes me to believe he is being disingenuous about it. I continue to have my concerns about what it might mean for my grandchildren. At this point I have written to my congressman and senators expressing my concerns. What else can I do?
That's about it I reckon. However, I think your concerns are there deal or no deal. all a matter of timing. I think they only way were being taken to the cleaners is if they were never going for nukes to begin with. What I will say though, assuming this deal becomes operable, is any candidate republican or democrat who says the first thing they would do if elected is rip the agreement up won't get my vote. That's way to many middle fingers to other countries.
It's seeming more and more to me that this deal depends on Iran not cheating and Iran changing its attitude toward the West over the next 10 to 15 years--a rather risky roll of the dice.
Post a Comment