What is your opinion of "The Iran Deal"?
To my view "The Iran Deal" is nothing short of "Kicking the can down the road, with an uphill road facing Israel and the USA" when the "deal" expires. Meantime, Iran builds the military technology and armaments, and then they build the "equalizer bomb." Choices at that point will be very different than choices now.
Other than going straight to war, how do we stop Iran? A an independent nation (not saying the people are independent, but the nation is independent) it would see the best we can hop for is a first-step deal that might be expanded upon later if any degree of trust is developed. Otherwise, the United States, does not have any authority to tell Iran what it can or cannot do. U.N. resolutions do not have the force of law. Our best bet is to negotiate the most acceptable deal we can and then use of surveillance capability to keep tract of what is taking place and relay that information to our allies. Everyone is afraid of a nuclear bomb. WWII proved the damage and deaths such a bomb could cause. It is unlikely that those weapons will be used. The first one to fire, will be attacked by numerous other nations. The nuclear device becomes an equalizer.
Here's my opinion....How about USA and Israel agree to give up their bombs, thereby making it equal. All 3 can have no nuclear, be subject to inspections, and under the threat of sanctions should any 3 break the agreement. That would make the world respect us, and show that America and Israel are NOT trying to strong-arm the entire planet. That would be an act of diplomatic humility that we so badly need. Forget this puffing up our chest baloney....we are supposed to be a Christian Nation! Time we start acting like it!
According to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons.
Well Now.....how about that! And for some reason, Iran is not allowed......I call that dirty pool.
Sandi, thank you for your earlier comment. Regarding your response, you have to remember the only nation that has ever used an atomic bomb in a war was--the United States in WWII, That action has been a deterrent, but the players are changing.
Yes--that is true. And we sit here demanding sanctions and suffering and war because someone else wants nuclear energy...not even the bomb!! Oh but we don't believe them. WE are the arbiters.WE--who already dropped one. And our "ally" who has one too
What does it mean to set off bombs in restaurants and fire rockets at settlements, other than to derail negotiations for a resolution of the impasse? To my view those are acts of terror fitting to a policy of "all or nothing." Who is finanicing it?
Those settlements shouldn't be there. And if someone bulldozed your home, imprisoned your children, bombed you continuously for 60+ years, shut off your electricity, had you on starvation diet, took away any means of self-defense --what would you do?
The Iran Deal is pure stupidity. Here is why: No one can negotiate with terrorists.
When terrorists say they want to wipe Israel and the United states off the face of the earth, they mean it. This "deal" frees up all the money Iran's leaders need to do just that. Terrorists do not follow rules. They use foolish people to obtain their goals. They do not care about their own people, much less those they proclaim to hate. History has proven this to be true over and over again.
And for those who say that Israel has no right to defend themselves, well...I'm sure they would feel differently if they were under threat for their lives every single hour of every single day.
What do you say to people who think USA and Israel are the terrorists? For example, the ones under threat in the ME are Palestinians. 60+ years of terror. Ask them who the terrorists are.
I think those people are particularly ill-informed.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p … bing-byman
Israel has every right to defend itself and so does every other country. Therefore, we cannot demand or dictate which countries will or will not have nuclear capabilities. We just have to be prepared.
Larry, in the case of a terrorist nation, we must make demands. Iran does not play fair. I respectfully disagree that we can prepare. Other nations will not "push the button" (except North Korea) but Iran will. It is their goal to destroy.
Says who? Bibi? pulleaze. Here, right back atcha, as far as ill-informed:
Savadating: If a nuclear bomb is launched at U.S., nations allied with the U.S. will seek to destroy the weapon in flight and will attack Iran. No one wins, but Iran is the biggest loser.
Who is the one threatening? Israel, and they actually DO have the bomb!
Thiswhole scenario is backwards. We keep acting like the bully on the block is the victim. And now they get compensated with more deadly weapons?Insanity! Free Palestine.
My only point is that we do not have the authority to prevent any nation form developing a nuclear weapon. Thus we need to be as close to the issue as possible and learn as much as we can. It is accepting reality and preparing.
Indeed Larry is right in saying that what we are all left with is preparing for what comes next. I suspect Israel has already done that.
I am disappointed that Iran was ever brought to the negotiating table. In doing so, we legitimized a rogue nation. A nation that dangerous needs to be brought to its knees, not to the dinner table.
Savvydating: How do we bring Iran to its knees without starting a global war. Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations do not like us or anybody. We cannot tell them what they cannot do. Give negotiations a chance. We can go to war anytime.
Larry, we do it through tighter sanctions. Money talks. Lack of money talks louder.
wow....it's no wonder people of the world see us as they do.....just wow. Well, blind leading the blind and then we all die I guess. A nation of war-mongers. shakingmyhead....how far we have fallen since Kennedy. (not you, Larry)
Larry, the only reason that Iran has come to the negotiating table is because of sanctions, which were approved of and specifically imposed by the UN, meaning many nations.. Thus, other united nations want sanctions.
I think any analysis that only looks at deficiencies in the agreement is unrealistic and unhelpful because it implicitly compares the deal with the "perfect deal" we'd all like to have. Everybody admits this deal falls way short of perfect. That means that by definition there are objectionable elements.
The true comparison is to what other alternatives are obtainable. Since the other nations that helped negotiate the deal, and which are 100% behind it, will certainly not reimpose sanctions if the US unilaterally scuttles it, the only other alternative is war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke in the short term. But military experts both in the US and Israel agree that after the first bombing Iran's nuclear efforts will just go underground. There simply is no military way to prevent Iran eventually getting the bomb. Either we and the Israelis go to war and then occupy Iran indefinitely (can you imagine the effect of that on stability in the Middle East, not to mention exploding terrorism around the world), or, after having been bombed, Iran will certainly make it their #1 national priority to get the bomb, triggering a nuclear arms race in the region.
Then there is the fact that if Congress scuttles the deal, the negotiating power of the President (whether Obama or whoever comes next) is effectively destroyed. Who will trust that a POTUS has the power to follow through on deals he or she negotiates? What kind of deal could any president negotiate after such a demonstration of their impotency in the face of a Congress that is emboldened to act as 535 Secretaries of State? This way lies madness.
All the politicians who oppose the deal never seem to get to the point of talking about what happens next if it is rejected by Congress. In what way will we be in a better position to prevent Iran getting a nuke the day after that rejection? The answer is, there simply is no reasonable scenario by which rejecting this deal puts us in a better position.
If someone thinks there is, it behooves that person to lay out in detail exactly how we get to that better place. Nobody has because nobody can.
The truth is,they want war w Iran-have been hinting it since McCain ran for pres with that little song of his.Ehud Barack was talking on a stage, saying "something must be done about Iran, but not for the cameras",years ago!It's the goal-secretsnlies
A cogent presentation, and war is never, never the best alternative....even to poorly negotiated "deals." A time frame was needed, but in the end it cut the process short.
I do not disagree with anything you said. However, I will argue that if Iran ever launched a bomb, it would be under immediate surveillance by the U.S. and other countries. A counter-offense would be launched. Iran would virtually be destroyed.
by Jack Lee 22 months ago
What a bold move...Reaganesque in my opinion.Long overdue. We need to apply sanctions to Iran to force them to comply.The Obama legacy is being torn down piece by piece.
by Scott Belford 2 months ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
by LoliHey 4 years ago
The Nuclear deal with Iran: Good or bad for Israel?So the Iranians are happy. Obama is happy. Liberals are happy. Israel and the right-wingers are not. What do you think?
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
The Sunday NY Times Magazine cover story this week reports on the current state of the standoff between Iran, Israel, the US and other countries over Iran's nuclear facilities and intentions. It's a very frightening article because it says that an attack by Israel on Iran may be imminent and could...
by James Agbogun 10 years ago
It is apparent Iran is determined to arm herself with nuclear weapon. They are not ready for dialogue-as evident in the recent misile test. Should the military option be adopted? should Israel attack Iran?
by Margaret Perrottet 7 years ago
Are we on the brink of war with Iran?Romney takes a very hard line concerning Iran. Obama has been trying to make sanctions work, and has urged Israel to wait it out. However, looking at newspapers from Israel, they seem to think that Iran will be capable of producing enough uranium to...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|