I’ve gone back and forth on listening to both sides of the debate on the negotiated nuclear pact with Iran and the P5+1 nations. It has opponents on both sides of the political aisle as well as support. There’s a natural scepticism about the efficacy and the consequences of this agreement. The U.S. opponents understand Iran has been and will continue to support international terrorism. Taking a hard line against the regime seems justifiable considering the history with Iran ever since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 initiated through a hostile take over of the American Embassy in Tehran with 52 American hostages.
Iran has been controlled by Islamic militants since this time, and as far as they are concerned, the United States is the great Satan. It’s always been a tactic by extremists to accuse another party of abhorrent behavior. Meanwhile, the beheadings, explosive suicidal terrorists, continuous conflict against neighboring countries can continue. It’s great propaganda, diverting attention away from monstrous internal control and external aggression.
It’s been known by intelligence sources since at least 1998, Iran is developing a functioning nuclear bomb. The idea of sanctions against the nation hasn’t entirely stopped their progress. The process of stopping them in creating one is one of those perpetuated myths, which nations such as the United States attempt to instil confidence in the methodology. In point of fact, it’s inevitable they will have the capability and soon the delivery system.
It’s not so much of a debate as to their eventual success, more of a time-table as to when. This is the principle point hard-liners are using against such a negotiated deal. They believe not only can’t Iran be trusted to not go forward with its development, they believe by lifting sanctions, the time-line will be shortened. There’s probably truth in these concerns, but here’s the other side of that argument. Iran is going to get the bomb, just like North Korea, but if we can somehow allow inspectors into the country and have some insight into their technology, we stand a better chance of knowing what they might do and when and even some of their logistics. Right now, we have none of this, and this type of intelligence is going to be helpful should they decide to act aggressively toward their neighbors, especially Israel.
My contention is, obtaining and preserving peace in the world is always tenuous at best. Humans have shown an incredible disposition toward violence against each other, and I don’t see that coming to an abrupt halt. We have seen peace treaties come and go through out history. The U.S. has been as guilty as any nation in not honoring their agreements. Ask Native Americans how well the U.S. has honored peace treaties. Peace should be the first thing sought after, not as an after thought from another war. War is always on the table for any international agreements like this one, even though it’s not an expressed part of the pact. Therefore I propose we first give peace a chance. Personally, I don’t care how long negotiations go on as long as war is avoided.
Articles of Related Interest
- What the Iran nuclear deal actually means
- Iran’s Supreme Leader Rules Out Negotiations With U.S. Beyond Nuclear Issues
- McConnell plans hardball
- Pro-Iran Deal Lawmakers To Colleagues: Read The Intel
- Everyday Iranians Weigh In On Nuclear Deal
- ‘The Iranian Threat’ ~ Noam Chomsky opinion