The Nuclear Deal With Iran - To support or not to support?

This post includes 3 important items - Please view all 3 before you comment with your opinion on the deal.

1:       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6aL5TVVRFI

President Obama talks with NPR about Iran Nuke deal

2.       http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8970455/iran-deal-charts

Visual representation of Iran Nuke deal


3.       Below:  Letter from U.S. Senator from Iowa Chuck Grassley to myself in response to my question about his position on the Iran Nuke deal, received August 6, 2015, just after Obama's address to the nation.



CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501
120 Federal Building
320 6th Street
Sioux City, IA 51101-1244
(712) 233-1860

210 Waterloo Building
531 Commercial Street
Waterloo, IA 50701-5497
(319) 232-6657

201 West 2nd Street
Suite 720
Davenport, IA 52801-1817
(563) 322-4331

307 Federal Building
8 South 6th Street
Council Bluffs, IA 51501-4204
(712) 322-7103

Dear Mrs. Ahrens:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you. Please accept my apology for the delayed response.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the nuclear agreement between the United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Iran on their nuclear program.  For more than two decades, Iran has engaged in illicit activities to acquire nuclear capabilities.  These efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and Iran’s support of terrorist groups are serious U.S. security threats.

In November 2013, the Administration announced a tentative agreement with Iran following negotiations between the U.S., Iran, and five other world powers.  In exchange for Iran slowing certain aspects of its illicit nuclear program, the United States suspended some sanctions.  On April 2, 2015, President Obama announced what he described as “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.  On July 14, the negotiators announced that a deal had been reached, and subsequently released the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to implement the deal.

According to President Obama, this deal will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and in exchange, all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted.  I have serious concerns about the 150-page implementation plan.  Notably, it accepts and legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state. Iran will not dismantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past U.S. policy that Iran not be allowed to enrich. And, Iran is permitted to continue a vast research and development program.  Many of the significant limitations expire after ten years, leaving Iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program.  

Perhaps most troubling, Iran could fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state.  They will be allowed to retain significant enrichment technology.  Key bomb making technology will not be dismantled, and they will continue their nuclear research and development.  Iran will achieve and maintain an internationally recognized, industrial scale nuclear program.  In just eight years, Iran can begin production of efficient, advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium. This is all contrary to the initial goal Obama announced.

Concerns also remain regarding the strength of the inspection and verification regime that’s in place to ensure that if Iran cheats, we can catch them.  Energy Secretary Moniz assured Congress that international inspections would occur “anytime, anywhere.”  However, under the terms of the agreement, inspectors will have “managed access,” with Russia, China and Iran having a say when and where inspectors can go. In fact, the deal provides Iran with a 24-day process to further delay and hide prohibited activities.  Iran has a track record of cheating on past agreements, and this deal allows Iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days.

Another important concession included in the deal is the lack of resolution on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) concerns on Iran’s past nuclear weapons work – there is no requirement that Iran provide details on their past military dimensions of their nuclear program, even though the U.S. position was that Iran had to come clean about that history before any sanctions relief.  It’s critical for a robust verification regime to work, that the IAEA have a full accounting of Iran’s past efforts and stockpiles.

Even more troubling is that U.S. policymakers do not have access to the side agreements between the IAEA and Iran, which the Administration claims are standard practice in arms control agreements.  Not having access to those side agreements is enormously troubling.   The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate 98-1, requires the Administration to provide to Congress access to all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements" as part of the deal.  Iran has a history of successfully hiding illicit nuclear work.  A lot of questions remain about the effectiveness of the verification process.

I also have concerns about the last-minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles.  General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.  But, under this agreement, after just five years the conventional arms embargo will be lifted.  After just eight years, the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted.  Iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be a direct threat to the U.S. and our allies.  And Iran’s past arms trafficking to Hezbollah, Hamas and others has long threatened Israel, other Middle East allies and stability in the region.

In exchange for abiding by the terms of this agreement, the U.S., United Nations, and the European Union will lift the vast majority of sanctions.  Once Iran has complied with the initial restraints on their nuclear program including reducing installed centrifuges and lowering enriched uranium stockpiles, the U.S. European Union, and United Nations the sanctions will be lifted.  This could occur as early as this fall, and release more than $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets.    The lifting of sanctions and release of these funds will only exacerbate Iran’s support for terror, with Iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets to bolster their conventional military and further support terrorism.  Even Secretary of State Kerry testified that Iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten Americans and Israeli’s.

The concept of “snapping-back” these sanctions also appears less effective than was originally claimed.  While any member of the agreement could refer a dispute to the UN Security Council, Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the agreement.  Essentially, if Iran views snap-back sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement, any effort to reimpose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as whether or not to dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions.

Let me be clear, I support all efforts that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.  Proponents of this agreement argue that the only alternative to the deal is war.  That’s a false choice.  Iran came to the negotiating table because they desperately sought sanctions relief.  If this deal were rejected, it would allow our negotiating team to negotiate a better deal that more adequately safeguards the nation’s security interests of the United States and our allies.  A better deal would not legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanctions relief for limited temporary constraints, and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race.

I’m also terribly frustrated that the Administration decided to purse consideration of the agreement at the United Nations Security Council prior to Congressional consideration.  The UN subsequently agreed to a binding resolution to lift sanctions on Iran after 90 days.   This is an end-run around Congress and is an affront to the American people.  It’s unfortunate that, despite bipartisan objections, the Administration pushed forward the vote at the UN.

Aside from Iran’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability, it’s important to remember that they continue to hold three Americans hostage.  At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants.  They provide support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and provide weapons, funding and support to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Given Iran’s spotty track record and history of noncompliance with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease their nuclear program, we have little reason to trust the Iranian government.  I strongly agree with President Obama that it is better to have no deal than a bad deal.  I fear the deal we’ve been presented has far too many shortcomings, and will fail to make America and our allies safer.  I want you to know that I will continue to study the terms of the deal until the Senate votes on the agreement in early September, as provided under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Chuck

Ally Gallagher; The Psycology Behind Trump's Votes

When reading this article, the first thing that intrigued me was how popular Donald Trump has become since his obnoxious presentation at the first Republican debate. One would think that after admitting to possibly using a third party if not elected for the Republicans, as well as telling a competitior he was having an off night would bring a candidate down in the polls. But, Trump soared; earlier seen as a joke, Trump has now topped the leaderboards. The most intriguing thing about this sudden change of voter opinions is the psychology behind it. Using a source from the Huffington Post, I discovered five reasons why Trump may be such a popular candidate.
Standing for something, refusing to disappoint the American people, and even relating to the people on a more judgmental note were all reasons included; but my favorite two causes are object constancy and the mirror neuron gap. Object constancy is the ability to hold onto hope for something to happen even in the face of disappointment, which most voters have no tolerance for. This draws them to Trump's disapointment-free campaign. But, this is also dangerous for Trump because one slight mishap could send the votes in all other directions. Lastly, the mirror neuron gap is what people experience when they feel as if they care more about the world around them than the world cares about them. Trump is successful in making people feel united by saying what everyone is thinking, and most importantly closing the neuron gap. Although this seems to be more of a psychology lesson than a class blog post, I found it very intriguing just how easily a candidate can receive votes; They just need to relate to the people, and most of all, be different. This is why Trump has a shot at becoming the next president of the United States. People see him on television and can relate to what he is saying. The voters want change; and, as of now, the people believe Trump can bring that change.

The Primary Campaign has begun!

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2015/08/the-first-gop-debate-trumped.html Visit above link to read the article at it's original site. React in a comment with the 3 required elements: a. personal educated reaction b. source of article referenced c. explanation of how this article adds to the discussion / supports your opinion You may comment on the original post or react to a student's reaction (so comment or reply to that instead) To score I will view all comments and replies posted before class time on Friday. There is no late credit allowed.

EXAMPLE