I received your e-mail concerning the Iran nuclear agreement signed on July 14, 2015.
I was both surprised and disheartened by your position on, and some of your representations about, this most important agreement. The singular and most important objective of these negotiations and the ensuing agreement is to limit Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons.
Without an agreement Iran is two months away from producing a bomb and we risk a third Middle East war; only this time with a country that is two and a half times larger than Iraq. And we all know how well that is working out.
Your statement that “The proposed deal does not end Iran's nuclear program, but actually results in reduced pressure and less protection.” is blatantly incorrect. Right now Iran is two months away from a bomb. Implementing this agreement will roll back Iran’s current stockpiles of high grade uranium and the equipment necessary to process more. And to insure our ability to monitor these requirements this agreement gives us the right to inspect whatever and wherever for the next 15 years; so arguments that the deal is not long enough are absurd on their face.
According to President Obama: “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” … “Those are — those are the options.”
It should also be noted that our allies in these negotiations have all sighed on to the deal. The United Nations has passed it and many of our allies have already moved in to negotiate a wide variety of commercial relationships. This means we could very well be alone in further negotiations and actions and/or sanctions.
So, it comes down to one thing: Are you in favor of another war? Are you willing to send our armed forces into battle when there is no direct danger or reason to do so? Are you willing to spend trillions of dollars on a war of choice?
Don’t hide behind negative statements that avoid the heart of the matter. If the objective is to restrict Iran’s ability to produce an atomic bomb it is either negotiate or declare war. From my view I have used up all my war wants in Viet Nam.
I will add one thing more. Politics stops at the water’s edge; or at least it should. Disagreements between branches and parties on domestic issues are a good thing:
Political positions when it comes to the safety of our nation are not acceptable. You just can't go along with the Party!
Harvey K. Orens