There’s been much talk
lately regarding the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran.
The current deal being negotiated would limit Iran’s nuclear program to only civilian
use and scale back their nuclear enrichment program. Unfortunately, they’ll get
to retain their advanced [‘military-grade’] centrifuges and plutonium-producing
heavy-water reactor [instead of being required to dismantle it]. Great for
Iran! Not great for the rest of us. But wait there’s more, Iran will get an
assist with nuclear Research and Development, plus, sanctions relief will give
their economy a big boost as foreign companies engage Iran to do business.
‘Civilian use, what’s the
big deal,’ you say. To be truthful, the deal being negotiated would provide for
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] inspectors to verify that Iran’s
nuclear capability remains solely for civilian use, not for bomb-making
purposes. This assurance of inspectors, of course, ignores the fact that prior
deals have also allowed for IAEA inspectors, but the inspectors had regularly
been denied access disallowing this verification. Who would trust Iran to make
another similar deal and this time expect
them to abide by the inspectors?
“We are powerful enough to
be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk,” said
President Obama in a recent interview with journalist Thomas Friedman. Iran’s a
long ways from us, so he’s likely correct that we would not immediately be at
risk. Being a good citizen, however, especially the most powerful good citizen
in the world, means looking out for more than number one. It means also looking
out for our allies.
Additionally, a nuclear
Iran affects a vast circle of influence. This could spike a nuclear arms race as
their neighboring countries try to keep up to deter the local bully. What
happens when the violence in the Middle East becomes nuclear? At that point,
the troubles may flow like an open fire hydrant.
If Iran complies with the
details of the deal, nuclear armaments are delayed for 10 years. After those 10
years, however, their bomb making nuclear capability is virtually assured as a
result of the shared knowledge and research. To speak clearly, a nuclear bomb
is not the issue, it’s a matter of who has the nuclear bomb. France and England
have a nuclear bomb, but nobody’s worried that they’d actually put it into
play. Iran, however, is a different story! A hotbed for terror and aggression
with a newly booming economy - due to the lessening of economic sanctions [sanctions
have been in place since the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979], and enhanced nuclear
knowledge could energize them with renewed bravado and a willingness to get
militarily frisky. Bummer for their neighbors, and our allies – the good guys,
they are not in favor of this deal’s success.
“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on
my watch,” President Obama went on to say. I’d find it more encouraging had he
stopped after ‘Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,’ instead he seems more
content in knowing that they’ll get one, just not until he’s out of office and
they’re somebody else’s problem. Here’s an alternative: no nuclear deal, keep talking with Iran, retain
sanctions, do not provide nuclear technology, and prevent their bomb-making
capability.
Maybe I jump to
conclusions, certainly President Obama would not be in favor of a deal that makes
Iran a nuclear power. He hopes at least, hope that is neck-deep in a utopian’s perspective.
I’m not one of his detractors saying the president is trying to push forward to
intentionally compromise the U.S.’s world position. I am, however, one of his
detractors who thinks President Obama is regrettably naïve in the things he
believes will fall into place as a result of a sporting gesture. Unfortunately,
this sporting gesture has nuclear catastrophic potential.
-wdk
Posts
