ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Gender and Relationships»
  • Non-Monogamous Relationships

Should the Iran deal be rejected by the Senate?

Updated on August 21, 2015

There was a time when statements were made that we do not negotiate with terrorists. The latest agreement with Iran seems to have turned this philosophy on its head. Some may say that Iran does not fit this characterization but it is clear from all reports that they are funding terrorist organizations. While not conducting terrorist attacks by funding such groups they are just as guilty and deserve the same label. From all reports they are fighting proxy wars in multiple countries through the funding they are currently providing.

The details of this recent agreement are slowly coming out and what is being reported should raise concerns about whether this is a good deal. The federal government always puts its own spin on any agreement they make but the impact of this agreement requires honesty. Individuals who were part of this activity need to be honest not only with us the citizens but the Senate who must give an up or down vote on the agreement.

A line in the sand was drawn by the President who stated that he would not sign any deal that did not guarantee access to monitor Iran’s nuclear activity. In fact statements have been made by political leaders in Iran that the picture being painted by our government is totally different than their perception. We signed this deal even when demonstrations have called for the destruction of Israel and death to Americans.

A recent report in a newspaper identified that Iran will conduct its own inspections to ensure they are not violating the agreement. As the saying goes this is like the fox guarding the hen house. No country should be allowed to conduct its own inspections of their facilities especially nuclear facilities. Other aspects include that Iran has made previous agreements and they kept none of them. What makes us as a country feel they will keep this new one? There are seven basic facts which have surfaced about the Iran deal and they are provided below:

U.S. nuclear inspectors are banned from inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites.

This aspect of the deal as reported recently is a slap in the face. Not only does have the authority to do its own inspections by some reports banning U.S. nuclear inspectors from their nuclear sites is an unacceptable condition.

Obama’s Iran Nuclear deal lifts economic sanctions that could boost Iran’s economy with $150 billion in revenue.

Iran is a rich oil country and giving any country that is known to be a sponsor of terror let alone not honoring its past agreements as seen by violations of United Nations sanctions is wrong. If the agreement is rejected by the Senate this money should not be given to Iran.

The Obama administration admits that “we should expect” Iran will spend some of the $150 billion in revenues Obama’s deal gives them on their military and possibly terrorism.

Giving this level of funds through this agreement will be a boost to Iran’s economy and where to you think this money will be spent? It will undoubtedly not be spent on the economy but will increase funding to their sponsorship of terrorists activity not to mention nuclear activity.

On the very week Obama brokered his Iran nuclear deal, large crowds across Iran could be heard chanting “death to America” and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared “death to America” months ago.

Chants of death to American should have caused the agreement to fall apart but we accepted this deal regardless of the threats being made to end our way of life.

Obama’s nuclear deal does not require Iran to release any American prisoners

Making any agreement with any country without the requisite to release any American prisoners lacks common sense.

Obama’s deal allows Russia and China to supply Iran with weapons

Allowing countries like Russia and China to supply Iran with weapons in addition to the ones they already have is ridiculous to say the least. We do not need Iran to have more resources to cause havoc not only in the region but the impact will be felt around the world.

77% of Americans oppose Obama’s lifting of Sanctions against Iran.

While there may be some information that is not accessible to the public it is clear with the history of Iran 77% of Americans oppose sanctions being lifted as part of this agreement. Government needs to listen to the people not ignore their concerns especially when there is a high percentage of unaffordability to specific decisions made.

The above facts if true and I have no doubt that they are should raise the level of opposition to this deal in the Senate. To top it off there appears to be other secret deals for which the content is not available to the Senate who has to vote on it. One thing for sure with the facts stated in the above paragraphs voters should be watching closely who votes to support this deal and who votes to reject it. Those who vote for it should be voted out of office if they are up for election regardless of the party affiliation.

The overwhelming opposition to this deal is one that both political parties in the Senate should pay close attention to and vote according to whether this agreement is in the best interest of our country. The security of our country and perhaps the world will be impacted by this agreement. One interesting fact which has been reported is that the Arab countries are standing with Israel in opposition to this agreement. This also should send a signal of how bad this deal really is and it should be soundly rejected.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago

      I think two things the USA pressured them into it and I think they did not know about the side deal with Iran which was not included in the details.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 2 years ago from Northern California

      Hello, Dennis. I am not as well-informed on this issue as I should be, and I have a stooopid question.

      Proponents of the Iran deal say that it's a good idea, because some of our allies are for it. The implication is that the leaders of these countries are smarter than we ignorant American citizens are. Here's another possibility: Our allies appear to be in favor of the deal, because

      1. The USA pressured them into it, and/or

      2. They cannot afford to have Iran shut off a part of a part of their future oil supply.

      What do you think?

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      Thanks again for commenting on this hub. I do not believe that rejecting this agreement means we will go to war with Iran. I do not believe that this agreement is the best option. The points I identified in this hub are unacceptable. For one thing Iran should not be inspecting their on facilities. As I pointed out it is like the fox guarding the hen house. I also want to point out that Israel who Iran wants to destroy and will not recognize their rights as a country has changed their mind.

      We negotiated with North Korea and look how that turned out. I thank you for continuing to comment on this hub but I feel Iran is a country we will have to deal with now and in the future. Giving them the freedom in this agreement as it is now wrong and should be soundly rejected. Also giving them billions of dollars only adds to their capability to fund proxy wars and terrorists activity.

    • RonElFran profile image

      Ronald E Franklin 2 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Just be clear about what your position is: if the deal should be rejected because Iran is not trustworthy (and everybody, including President Obama, agrees that any agreement cannot depend on trust, but rather on verification), then negotiation is pointless. Thus the only alternative is force. But, as we know, nobody claims that bombing Iran will stop their nuclear program. So the inevitable consequence of adopting your position is that we must go to war with Iran to stop them getting the bomb. And we must stay there, or as soon as we leave, they'll be back at it underground.

      On your claim of Arab countries opposing the agreement, that has changed. From a Bloomberg news account dated 8/4/15:

      "Israel and the Gulf Arab nations that agree on very little about the Mideast briefly found themselves in accord on one thing: the dangers of the Iran nuclear deal. ... That argument evaporated on Monday, when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry persuaded the six Persian Gulf monarchies to give cautious support to the accord, which Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Al-Attiyah called the 'the best option amongst other options' to thwart any Iranian quest for nuclear weapons."

      I do not believe that the U. S. being involved in perpetual war in the Middle East is preferable to giving this agreement a chance.

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      I have read through your arguments about not rejecting this agreement but I totally respectfully disagree with the position that rejecting the agreement is wrong. Iran in past negotiated agreements have never honored the agreements they have signed. In addition the countries involved in the negotiation may have a problem. It has been reported there are secret agreements that are not available to the Senate to be a part of the voting discussion.

      One important point I would like to make is that the countries involved in the negotiations did not include the countries which will be most impacted. I am talking about Israel and the Arab countries. A unique thing has occurred the Arab countries and Israel are on the same page in opposition to the agreement. The agreement would be better accepted if these countries would have been involved in the negotiations as they are the most impacted.

      The details of the agreement that I listed in this hub is unacceptable. You talk about the United States rejecting the agreement but what about Iran who has violated every agreement they signed so they are not a country that honors their agreements. In addition as the agreement was finalized they were shouting death to America. What should be honor agreements with a country that wants to destroy our way of life.

      Iran has always been restrictive to allow proper inspections and access to their facilities to determine if they are developing nuclear technology that could result in nuclear bombs.

    • RonElFran profile image

      Ronald E Franklin 2 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      The question I have yet to see any opponent of the deal answer is, after the deal is rejected, what happens next?

      The U. S. will have proven that it is not a reliable negotiating partner. The other countries that cooperated in the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table, including Russia and China, will certainly not re-impose their sanctions, and unilateral U. S. sanctions have been proven to be ineffective.

      The Iranian people, having been led down the garden path by the U. S., will be totally united in their determination to move forward with their nuclear program. They certainly won't enter into further negotiations involving the U. S. - what would be the point? Besides, national pride would absolutely forbid it. People who feel they are being bullied will undergo extreme suffering to uphold what they consider to be their honor. Bottom line: U. S. rejection of the present deal forecloses any further efforts at international sanctions and negotiation.

      What's left? Bombing Iran to try to destroy their nuclear capability. But military experts agree that would only drive their nuclear efforts underground, and they would recover and be ready for a final drive toward the bomb within no more than two or three years. In other words, aside from invading and occupying Iran in perpetuity, there would be no way to prevent them getting the bomb within a few years. And having been betrayed in negotiations and attacked militarily, they will certainly drive as hard as they can to get the bomb.

      The other thing I think about is this: the rest of the world, with very few exceptions, strongly approves this agreement. Nuclear experts have written a letter declaring their approval, stating that even with a 24-day delay in accessing a suspect facility, they have the tools to detect attempts to cheat. Plus, remember that all currently known Iranian nuclear facilities are subject to immediate inspection - it's only at facilities not now associated with their nuclear program where a 24-day delay could be imposed.

      So, the U. S. Congress is the only major actor in the world (again with a few exceptions like the Israeli Prime Minister) that wants to scuttle the agreement. Do I believe that a politician playing to his constituency really knows better than the English, French, Russian, Chinese, and other governments that helped negotiate and now strongly back the deal? Does that Senator or Representative really understand the inspection regime better than the nuclear physicist community that strongly backs it?

      Given that no politician has yet been able to articulate a plausible alternative to the deal that doesn't result either in an Iranian nuclear weapon or in war (or, most likely, both), it seems to me that the Congressional opposition is more political than rational.

      IMO a politician who says he's against the agreement but who can't say exactly how we get some better result by rejecting it merits neither my respect nor my attention. They are putting the world at risk of nuclear conflict in the Middle East for short term domestic political gain.

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      Thanks for stopping by and providing some input to the issue with Iran. I appreciate all input.

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago


      Thanks for commenting. You bring up some interesting points. When I wrote this hub there was a lot of information but the facts who mentioned added greatly to this hub.

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 2 years ago from Olympia, WA

      I would be hard-pressed, Dennis, to name an Arab country I really trust. If it were economically feasible I would say leave them all to themselves, have no dealings whatsoever with them, and we'll all go our separate ways. Unfortunately, in a global economy, that isn't going to this case, the best defense is a good offense. Iran needs to be dealt with from a position of power and not reconciliation. Just one man's opinion.

    • lions44 profile image

      CJ Kelly 2 years ago from Auburn, WA

      The bottom line for me is the 24 day warning period. I don't like it. And think about it: what is the difference between this deal and no deal at all? Nothing. Except that Iran is free from sanctions. The argument that if you are against this deal then you are a 'war monger" is insulting. I don't want war with Iran; this is about keeping a nuclear weapon out of their hands; which this deal does not do. There must be something going on behind the scenes. Why go out on a limb for a nation that supports terror against the U.S? I can't explain it. Why can't we keep the pressure on their government economically. It was working. Why don't we support the opposition within the country? Where are the hostages? The Administration needs to answer these questions before a vote is cast.

      Remember the last time we did a nuclear weapons treaty with a hostile nation? North Korea. How did that work out? I've been hearing for almost 20 years that there is a real threat that the North Koreans are exporting the technology to terrorists.

      Great topic. Voted up.