Nuclear Deal with Iran.....Does it Make Sense ?



How to make sense of the nuclear deal with Iran? Is it a necessary compromise that’s preferable to the alternatives ? A feeble sop to Iranian leaders bent on further destabilizing the region? A morally troubling gamble, born of bad options?

 The striking thing about the reaction to the Iran deal is that proponents and opponents are judging it by radically different standards.
Opponents keep saying that this deal isn’t as good as the Obama administration promised it would be and that it violates previous U.S. red lines. That’s true. It allows Iran to keep some enriched uranium. It also doesn’t include anytime, anywhere inspections, starting right away.  Probably, the Obama administration shouldn't have promised to give generous notice before inspections.

Proponents compare it to the alternatives: which are doing nothing, war, or trying to increase sanctions in hopes of getting better concessions down the line.  You don't see opponents explaining in any detail how any of these alternatives would be preferable. A few years ago, one saw more hawks arguing for a military strike. But one rarely hears anyone these days arguing that a military strike makes sense. Some say that a “credible threat of force” would make Iran concede more. But Israel and America have been threatening force for a decade now. Why would more saber-rattling work now? Besides, to have your threat of force be credible, don’t you have to be willing to follow through—which requires explaining how military action would be effective in reducing the nuclear program and wouldn’t make the current regional conflict worse?

Opponents talk about increasing sanctions, which would supposedly force Iran into concessions.  Seems more likely that scuttling this deal, and passing more sanctions, would devastate [Iranian President] Rouhani and [Iranian Foreign Minister] Zarif politically. Rouhani was elected to improve the economy; torpedoing the deal would make him a failure. That would empower those hardline opponents who never wanted any deal. Beyond that, what basis is there to believe European and Asian countries, which have strong economic interests in Iran, will maintain sanctions indefinitely? The lesson of Iraq in the 1990s is that sanctions erode over time. British and German diplomats have warned that if the U.S. destroys the deal, sanctions could unravel. So why should we believe economic pressure will lead to more Iranian concessions?

 If we believe that ultimately the most important thing is the potential for political change in Iran, and the people who would make that change want this deal, doesn’t that carry real weight?  It seems that the  hawks who argue for a cold-war posture have absolutely nothing better to offer.

A Word From My Friend Humble...Thank you Mr Humble...I appreciate your input

I do believe that If the U.S can negotiate to make a deal with Iran to work its way around making nuclear development, things in the world would be better. It could be better financially and politically. I think that It could help out financially is that the U.S will stop economic sanctions that have been causing Iran's economy to plummet.Politically I think that maybe Iran would use their resources for the good of their people not for what they believe should be done.

On the other side of the coin :

I don't know if I am completely convinced if the U.S. can come to an agreement with Iran. According to the "Same Deal Different Stories" audio clip by NPR, both countires are reporting different facts to the press. Our side of the story states that we will drop our economic sanctions slowly, once they completed much of their side of the bargain. On the other hand, in Iran the press is saying the sanctions will be dropped immediately. Once the two nations come together to make the final agreement, this crucial detail might come in the way of agreeing on the deal. Also, keep in mind that "Some members of Congress are opposed to the deal with Iran and are actively working to prevent it from being signed." These are only two of many factors pushing the agreement to not be made. As of right now, it may be too early to tell whether or not the nations will sign the deal.

Making a peaceful deal with Iran would be incredible, but next to impossible. Iran is one of the top terrorist nations in the world, making them a huge threat to the USA. On top of that, they are just not very reliable as said in an installment of the NPR podcast. (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/m... “...Can’t agree with the agreement…” said Peter Kenyon.

Making a deal with Iran is dangerous enough, but even more so when there is a mutual feeling of distrust and enmity. And not to mention, nuclear weaponry.

Just my humble opinion

Mr Humble, I agree that a diplomatic solution would be a wonderful thing for Iran and for the world and may set an example for other nuclear bearing countries who are not members of the nuclear 'Non-Proliferation Treaty' (NPT), namely Israel, India and Pakistan....not forgetting North Korea who withdrew from the treaty. I also agree the deal will be a near impossible thing to pull off.  Kudos to President Obama for giving it a go.

 People should be aware that there are nine countries possessing nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. They possess , in total, approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. Enough to create a nuclear winter that would destroy pretty much all life on the planet.