In an article I found on the CNN website, it became clear that there are many people that oppose the current nuclear deal with Iran, and the article provides 5 reason. The first reason is that "it's Iran." Former Senator Joe Lieberman said that "Iranians have American blood on their hands" and that Iran has a history of not complying with other prior agreements. Another said that Iran is our enemy and that there should be no agreements with them. It has been declared rather publicly that Netanyahu believes the deal is a "historic mistake." The second reason was labeled "sanctioning sanctions." Under this category was the argument that the sanctions that were previously set on Iran seemed to be working and that maybe that was all that was needed. Why free up $7billion dollars to the Iran without a guarantee that this new deal will even work? Sanctions were set in place to deter nuclear build-up so why ease sanctions? The third reason was the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear ambitions. In this argument it claims that nothing it actually being done to disable current capabilities. This means that Iran will be able to keep all its facilities and all its enrichment technology, so without taking the means for enrichment, how can it be guaranteed that nuclear weapons cannot be created? The fourth reason places Iran as a new higher power in Iran. Oil rich nations such as Saudi Arabia fear that in the end should oil sanctions be fully lifted, a new oil competitor will arise. Middle Eastern nations still fear that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons. The last reason listed was the Israeli argument. That Israel is our greatest ally in the area and that we should back them in their views on nuclear programs in Iran. There are also complaints from politicians that has a large Jewish constituency. These politicians are voicing the opinions of their constituency about going against Israel by accepting this deal.
In all of this I found some truth, however I have a much different opinion. While some of these opinions simply cannot be ignored, I feel as though this deal addresses much larger issues. The first being that a deal is a deal. With little or no progress in nuclear talks with Iran, a small step forward is still a step forward. This could be the stepping stone to a much larger deal. There is also the factor of diplomacy in play. Many feel as though US military action and interference in the Middle East in not essential. I happen to agree. So why would diplomacy, through a deal such as this, not a positive thing? Should Iran make nuclear weapons the US would eventually undoubtedly take, or be involved in some type of military action. This type of diplomacy should be views as a good thing. It is much cheaper to come to an agreement than to fight another war. It also saves countless lives.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/politics/iran-deal-opponents-5-things/index.html
I do believe that there needed to be a deal made it order to make some progress towards a solution with Iran’s nuclear program. However, I agree with some of the points made by those opposing this deal too. The idea about not complying with other agreements that Iran said they would is one point I agree with. The best way to predict the future of this deal is to look at Iran’s past with other deals. The point about Iran's nuclear ambitions struck me because I think that Iran really just wants to be apart of the nuclear club. I think Iran wants to just have the same nuclear capabilities as so many other countries so that they could potentially blow up other countries. However, I think they just want to be able to have the power not really use the power to destroy any countries. With any big deal like this one there is going to be opposition and some of the points being made by those opposing this deal are legitimate. However, I think that some of the opposition fails to see the situation from Iran's point of view. For example, like I was saying about their ambitions being more about wanting to be apart of the club instead of trying to blow up Israel.
ReplyDelete