By Chip Skarpe of Bayside…
Iran deal a path to negotiated security
Who are these people who want to undo an agreement arduously negotiated to safeguard us and others from precipitous threats of war and nuclear arms? I’m tempted to dismiss them as nervous Nellies made paranoid by living with daily news of ever increasing cruelty and horror.
But that would be too kind.
Underlying these strident objections to a deal with Iran are partisan ambitions of people who choose to ignore that this is a plan carefully crafted by seven nations to hold Iran accountable and block future development of nuclear weapons. These are politicos who believe that they have benefited from past wars. They disregard the immense suffering and lasting mayhem brought us by their wars.
For eons before Ronald Reagan made famous the Russian proverb, “Trust, but verify,” peacemakers have been hammering out verification plans that will allow adversaries to avoid the horrors of war. For love of country and all that is holy, we should all be gratefully supporting this agreement.
So well said. Thank you!
And on this subject from Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum: I Want to Hear a Good Argument Against Obama’s Deal With Iran …
I don’t want Iran to build a nuclear bomb. It would quite likely set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which is the last place on the planet that we want to have one. And as near as I can tell, this deal is our best chance to keep Iran nuclear free for a good long time. If any conservative can offer a better plan, I’m all ears. Either:
Describe a tougher deal that you can reasonably argue Iran would have accepted.
Explain why some other course of action would be better at keeping Iran nuclear free than a negotiated deal.
No name calling, no comparisons to Neville Chamberlain, no complaints that Iran hates Israel, and no blather about appeasement. Make an argument. A real argument about a course of action that would be better than the deal currently on the table. Let’s hear it.