I have been hearing a great deal from Conservative leadership in the United States that, for the safety of the planet, the Iranian nuclear arms deal must be rejected by Congress. I accept that they may have a point but I also respectfully ask that they present their reason for the rejection, as a matter of courtesy. The sum of the reasons for rejecting the deal should demonstrate that the advantages of rejecting the deal more than compensate for the damage caused by rejecting the deal.
The cost of rejection? No country on the planet would ever again take any negotiation with the United States seriously. This includes economic, financial, military, political discussions. How would it be possible to maintain a leadership role in the world while no country takes Presidential action seriously? In addition to this, rejecting the deal removes all direct observational tools that the West would have acquired in the deal, thereby reducing Western ability to monitor the situation within the borders of Iran. I assert that the cost of rejecting the deal is high. I perceive absolutely no fact based logical argument being put forward against the accord, at all. All I see is that we "could have done better" or "the world will end" or "They will kill us". Are all purely emotional suppositions.
Every argument that I have heard in opposition to the accord is nullified with one simple verifiable fact. World leaders, including the power structures of Iran and Israel, realize that, if Iran posed a legitimate threat to world civilizations as perceived by the West, it would be incinerated one fine morning with enough time remaining to prepare a nice dinner. After which, over a pleasant desert, cognac and coffee, the principle parties involved could lament the total destruction of an entire civilization from the globe; one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man, as documented by those that study this sort of thing. An entire civilization obliterated, man woman and child. This outcome is inescapable with or without any treaty or signed or unsigned document of any kind; the West will not die easily. All of the signatories on the accord know this and the military and political power structures of the entire planet know this as well.
The capability to do this is well documented and it would be a shame to have done so without first having given Iranian leaders every chance in the world to encourage their populations and power structures to relinquish anti-social behavior. Every effort to and including financial aid should be offered up. Failure to having done this in advance would perturb the good taste of the cognac, and that would be a shame. We would then be obliged to spend multiple generations inventing stories explaining to our children why we were not just ordinary assholes who, without any attempt at diplomacy or direct contact, vaporized 77 million people and obliterated one of the oldest civilizations on the planet because "they would not do what we told them to do". So, who is supporting the agreement?
The leaders of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran have, after nine years of negotiation that started in 2006 with economic sanctions on Iran, decided that the best way to proceed with the perceived nuclear material and technology problem with Iran's government is the Iran nuclear deal signed in July 2015. This will lift the Iranian sanctions in exchange for concessions by the Iranian government. They want the US Congress to ratify the accord.
This agreement is supported by the diplomats of those 7 countries. This is to say that the people most familiar with the use of international power have stated that this is the appropriate process and that this will reduce the likelihood of war. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.
Subsequent to signing the accord
29 upper level U.S. Scientists praise the deal in an open letter to Obama. This includes 5 Nobel Prize winners. These are people that are paid to think about science and technology, at least some of whom are intimately familiar with the research, development and production of nuclear weapons. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.
Finally, 36 retired generals and admirals also now support the Iran nuclear deal as well. Once again, this is not to argue that they are correct in their assessment. I am noting that a large number of military professionals of high rank have agreed that this is an important step in dealing with the perceived nuclear weapon threat. They do not rule out a military option. They say instead, that this agreement makes the use of a military option simpler and more effective, should it come down to that. They recommend that Congress ratify the accord.
Let me reiterate, These upper echelon military men have stated that ratifying the accord will make the use of the military option against Iran simpler and more effective, should it become necessary.
