Opinion Pro and Con on the Iran Nuclear Treaty

Opinion in Support of the Treaty 
Three years ago, Robert Wexler, former seven-term Democratic congressman from Florida’s 19th district and currently the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, wrote that “Israel cannot allow the emergence of a nuclear Iran. But before engaging in a military campaign whose unforeseen consequences might be devastating, it is in Israel’s best interest to allow the US and the international community to first exhaust all diplomatic, economic, and covert tactical options.”

Well, the nuclear treaty just concluded with Iran is the result of taking advantage of such diplomatic options, just as the sanctions involved in that diplomacy have been an economic option, in fact the one which has brought Iran to the negotiating table.  Please take a moment to read Wexler’s most recent thoughts on the treaty, as reported in a recent column in the Palm Beach Post, in which he outlines his reasons for supporting the treaty. To review the column, just click on
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/commentary-dont-walk-away-from-iran-nuclear-deal/nnMGs/  

 
Wexler

Wexler's column points out what might be the result of Congressional rejection of the treaty. In it he says:

"Now, here’s what we know if Congress rejects the agreement: Iran will retain its current breakout time — the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon — of two to three months. But what makes this scenario particularly dangerous is that the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to negotiations would likely crumble, leaving the United States without one of its most important levers over Iran. Foreign governments have enforced sanctions under the premise that they are a means to bring Iran to the negotiating table. But without a credible diplomatic horizon, European and Asian diplomats have indicated that the sanctions regime would inevitably erode. The consequence would be a less restricted Iranian nuclear program with limited inspections and an Iran with greater access to its assets held overseas."

                                                          *   *   *   *

When I outlined my reasons for support of the treaty in two recent postings on this blog, I invited readers’ comments.  Here are two unedited comments which were received.
JL

Opinion Opposed to the Treaty

From Marnin Spigelman: 

Jack, This is not a matter of disagreeing with you. The issue is the basic strength of the USA as a supposed superpower, and who is going to dictate terms....the terrorist, or our government. Seems to me the sanctions have been crippling Iran's economy, and continuing on this basis could potentially drive them to their knees. That many seem to believe in the fantasy that Iran can be trusted for the next 10 years, not evident in their actions over the last 10 years, then I believe that those in control of our power, led by who I believe is a weak President unable to exercise the power inherent in his position, makes us look weak and inept.

The hostages cannot be sitting there while we give away money and time to Iran. It should have been part of the negotiations. That we would be at "war" otherwise is a speculative theory....war with us, doubtful, so otherwise with who, how, and when. If Iran is so stupid as to attempt any kind of nuclear attack on our allies, or our interests then I would suspect that would leave Iran a burning cinder. Also, "most scientists" are making many speculative assumptions, but given the fact that Iran's nuclear program has been primarily secret, how do they know enough to be able to come to that conclusion. Oh, because supposedly that's what Iran is saying that all their sites have been relieved. If that be the case, then I can say with strong resolve, that I just saw pigs fly past my office window!

Scare tactics over  war with Iran only make us weaker if that is what makes the USA capitulate to them as to the terms and conditions of negotiating a treaty. I believe that the only agreements to this treaty is political acquiescence rather than dealing with the reality of the history of Iran, their actions, and their weak credibility. It very well might now pass...I hope not. I've said my peace.
                                                        
From Richard Levy:

1.    Does nothing to stop Iranian aspirations for Middle

East hegemony.  Right now thanks to sanctions Iran is having problems paying its proxies likes Hezbollah.  The deal frees up billions of dollars to bolster a failing economy and pay and supply proxies.                    

             

2.    The deal allows nuclear infrastructure to remain intact with the ability to enrich uranium to higher levels.  They will still have 5000 working centrifuges and the ability to bring it up to 20000 with little effort.        

                                

3.    The deal removes an arms embargo thus allowing Iran to upgrade and modernize her military while arming her proxies.  

                                 

4.    There is a 24 day window between call for inspection and carrying it out.  Snap 24/7.  Inspections have been given up. The thoroughness of inspections have been limited by not allowing access to military sights.   The west will also teach Iran how to protect her nuclear

facilities.             

                                   

5.  The 4 hostages should have been released as a sign of good faith.       

          

6.   Based on radical religious based antisemitism Iran still promises to murder the state of Israel.       

                                   

7. The U.S. And Europeans were negotiating from a position of strength.  Iran's economy was failing.   She faced more economic hardships.   Why not increase the economic pressure or at least maintain it to get more concessions or at least obtain the

stated goals of negotiations. Instead many stringent demands were loosened or

dropped in order to obtain a deal.

             

8.   It is stated in the Koran and Hadith that when at a military disadvantage ,sign any truce and promise anything to give oneself more time to recover rearm an d overcome the enemy     

                                    

9.   We are witnessing a modern day Munich  which will lead to the same outcome a war to stop a fanatical aggressor whose ideology is based on regional hegemony,  racist and religious aggression and the destruction of our allies.  All for Peace in Our Time.  Those who do not learn from historical mistakes are bound to repeat them.  You stop an aggressor

from a position of overwhelming strength.  Before he can obtain his goals.   

                                 

10. A nuclear agreement was signed with North Korea.  Her people were starving the west shipped them food.  Now look at the results.  This is a poor deal negotiated from a weak position  by a weak government.  Eventually Iran will get a bomb and she will be in a much stronger

position.      Remember Munich. Very similar situation and look at the outcome.

                                                    

There are a lot of excellent points made by both Richard and Marnin.  Unfortunately, these items were not  among the bargaining “chips” which were on the table during the recent negotiations.  Iran sat down wanting to have the sanctions imposed on its economy removed.  The other nations involved, including the United States, sat down wanting Iran’s nuclear development program curtailed so that its military aspects might be monitored and regulated over a period of years. The give and take of the negotiations was limited to these two items and not to anything else. In my opinion, doing so would have derailed the entire treaty and we would be in the position described in paragraph excerpted above from the Wexler article above.  

(This is not to say that other items, perhaps among those mentioned in the two comments, may not have been "secretly discussed" and tacitly agreed to.  Their open revelation, however, might have uncomfortable results domestically for some of the signatories.  For example, all parties to the negotiations were interested in defeating ISIS, so could not that have been "informally" touched upon at the meetings?)

Jack Lippman
                                         
                      

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman