ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Obama & Iran

Updated on November 26, 2013
Source
Source
Source

With Bibi Netanyahu lamenting an "historic mistake", Eric Cantor calling the deal "in fact dangerous", Lindsay Graham describing it as a "nightmare", Senator John Cornyn deeming it but a distraction from Obamacare, Morning Joe Scarborough exclaiming Iranian victory and Obama desperation, Dan Senor bemoaning the "degree of panic" he senses from our allies, Bill Kristol seeing it as a "terrible deal" & John Bolton damning the deal as "an abject surrender"...

There is no question as to where the neo-cons and chicken-hawks stand - pounding out the drum beat of war as per usual. Fortunately, when the neo-cons lose, America wins.

Neo-cons hate, just hate, the thought of peace negotiations. They are paid by the military industrial complex to fear-monger and beat on those war-drums. As John McCain giddily chortled to an audience of conservatives - bomb, bomb Iran. Ha-friggin-ha.

US intelligence first warned of an Iranian "clandestine nuclear weapons development program" as far back as the '70s. Bibi claimed in his 1992 book, that Iran was "close" to weaponizing their nuclear program.

While Iran does of course have the right, as any other sovereign nation, to develop and maintain nuclear power capabilities - the West (as we are known by some) have determined that Iran should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

No matter that Pakistan, North Korea, India, Israel, Russia and so on, already enjoy said nuclear capability - hard-liners (Netanyahu, namely) have decided that Iran is not to even have the ability to be anywhere close to the capability of nuclear weaponization.

Here in lies the problem - nuclear power and nuclear weapons both require enriched uranium. While power can be harnessed from the warmth emitted from a tiny amount of enriched uranium, it cannot be weaponized until enriched beyond 20% - the yellow cake stage.

The cost to carry out such a task is...prohibitive. Especially so given the international sanctions imposed upon Iran. Which explains the purpose of the sanctions. That being said, the sanctions rely upon the cooperation of the international community.

In the presidential debates in 2008, Obama was chastised by chicken-hawks far and wide for his shocking display of naivete in promising to negotiate with Iran for the first time since 1979.

Source
Source
Source

Shortly after winning reelection, Obama put feelers out to Rouhani, who was among six candidates for president of Iran (not the Supreme Leader, it should be noted). Rouhani ran as a (relative) moderate who would negotiate with the West in hopes of a deal to trade nuclear concessions in exchange for an easing of the sanctions that continue to ravage the Iranian economy and harm the poorest of Iranians the most.

After a year of negotiating on the down low, as it were, those talks have now come to fruition. Iran's nuclear program is delayed, and if they did choose to reneg on this deal and make a mad dash to weaponize, we would know about it much sooner given the daily inspections agreed upon in this deal.

Perhaps as important, the lines of communication have been opened. Peaceful dialogue has commenced, in the wake of decades of mud-slinging and demonizing to respective domestic crowds. Most important, is that the war-mongers drum-beat is muffled. Iran is their shiny object. And as they are wont to do, they will have a hissy-fit. They will cry and cry, they will render their garments. They will bemoan the peacenikian wussification that will surely bring about the impeding doom of America.

Hopefully they stop short of leveling new sanctions. With Iran having extending their proverbial hand - if we turn around, slap that hand away and break the first deal in decades by imposing new sanctions post-haste? Again, sanctions require international cooperation in order to be effective.

Here in the US, we've been warned time and time, for decades in fact, against negotiating with terrorists. That's all well and good if your aim is only to exert American power by force rather than tact (guess which option fills the pockets of defense contractors.

In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons whatsoever. Unfortunately, none of us happen to reside in Shangri-la. What we can strive for is peace. With disaster averted in Syria (much to the dismay of the neo-cons), and progress being made with Iran, the chicken-hawks have fallen on hard times - and that's always a good thing.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Hxprof 3 years ago from Clearwater, Florida

      The arrogance of the major powers after WWII is what brought about the non-proliferation treaty, and as you say, many have ignored it and developed nuclear weapons. This in spite of US and international efforts to halt these nations.

      I further agree with you that the military industrial complex salivates over the potential profits to be made from budding conflicts.

      Where we disagree is on Iran. The country is run by an ayatolla and those appointed by him...this group has a strong tendency towards radical Islamic thought, much of it centering upon the end of days as portrayed in Islamic scripture.

      Some of these are men who have apocolyptic designs, which have been revealed at times via the president (who holds little power). I'm in agreement with those who have a problem with the idea of these men having nuclear weapons. Am I right in this? Time will tell my friend.

      You state that "Iran's nuclear program is delayed, and if they did choose to reneg on this deal and make a mad dash to weaponize, we would know about it much sooner given the daily inspections agreed upon in this deal". I'm not confident that the agreed inspections are even close to thorough enough to verify anything. Over the last several years Iran has routinely denied UN inspectors access to certain facilities.

      Regardless of what the neo-cons or war-hawks want, the only thing that matters is the intent of the Iranian government. I believe Obama made a mistake. His mistake wasn't in agreeing to talk with Iran; his mistake was in signing on to a deal that doesn't do a darned thing to ensure Iran won't obtain nuclear weapons.

      For the record, I believe that Iran already has a nuke, one it obtained perhaps from Pakistan or from one of the old Soviet nations. Iran can't deliver such a device by missle - not yet.

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 3 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      The neo-Cons will never stop their attacks. Their world view is consumed by this war bluster and need for enemies to hate. President Obama's willingness to negotiate is now paying dividends. Secretary of State John Kerry has done a marvelous job in his short time at this post. Maybe this can develop into a wider Middle East peace. I wrote a Hub about it recently. It can happen if the stars align right and war hawks lower their rhetoric. Great Hub, Justin.