We all agree with Dennis Lintz (see his letter of 3/18/15 in the Laconia Daily Sun, laconiadailysun.com) that we don’t want war with Iran, or anyone, and that we hope for a wise treaty with Iran that prevents them from ever getting nuclear weapons.
Everyone should have learned that preventing an aggressor from becoming powerful is a much wiser and less costly course than not taking small threats seriously. Consider the consequences of our refusal to believe that radical Islamists were at war with us before 911 or the world’s refusal to believe the threat that Hitler was becoming.
More recently, ISIS was called a JV team, nothing to worry about. ISIS has become a well-funded major force with modern weapons, tens of thousands of soldiers, modern communications, and ties to radical Islamist groups around the world. ISIS has captured many cities and much territory, killed tens of thousands, and has issued credible threats against the US and other countries.
Iran has clearly and repeatedly stated its intentions to obliterate Israel and Western Civilization. Iran has reportedly enriched uranium far beyond what is needed for a nuclear power plant. Iran’s intermediate range missiles could hit Israel or Europe with nuclear sized payloads. Iran has announced plans to build intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the US with nuclear payloads.
Iran’s threats must be taken seriously.
Unfortunately our Presidents have gotten important things wrong before with dangerous or costly consequences. President Clinton told us North Korea wouldn’t get nukes, but then let them get them. President Bush told us Iraq had WMDs which were never found.
Unfortunately President Obama inspires little confidence that his agreement with Iran will provide the needed safeguards. President Obama’s Middle East policy has been disastrous, creating threats where there were none and alienating allies. President Obama’s inaction when his “red lines” were crossed and his desperation to get an agreement tell Iran that it has the upper hand in negotiations.
And, President Obama’s refusal to submit any “agreement” to the Senate for its review and approval suggests that any agreement is likely to be very bad, leading to a growingly powerful, nuclear armed Iran capable of inflicting enormous damage and loss of life if it pursues its promised goal of obliterating Israel and the West.
Information leaked about the proposed agreement indicates that there are no limits on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles or its ability to create a nuclear bomb in 10 years. Ten years may seem long to us, but for people who have been working for world domination for 1400 years, 10 years is nothing.
Any agreement that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon will set off an arms race in the Middle East making the region and the world much more dangerous. It is better to have no deal than this.
By threatening to re-impose sanctions and by demanding that President Obama submit any agreement for review and approval or disapproval, the Senate is strengthening President Obama’s hand in negotiations with Iran. Hopefully the result is a wise treaty that the Senate will comfortably approve because it stabilizes the Middle East, prevents further nuclear proliferation, and is verifiable.
But perhaps we have been making totally incorrect assumptions about President Obama’s objectives in his negotiations with Iran. We have assumed that President Obama wants to avoid bloodshed in the Middle East, that he wants the current nations to coexist without terrorism or armed struggles among them. Unfortunately there has been little about President Obama’s Middle East actions that support such a conclusion. Consider President Obama’s actions in Egypt, Libya, Syria, his premature withdrawal from Iraq, his slow and weak response to ISIS, his arming of anti-Assad forces in Syria which have ended up in the hands of ISIS, his refusal to arm the Kurds, his plan to prematurely withdraw from Afghanistan, his attempt to install a weak Israeli leader, etc. The results of President Obama’s actions don’t strongly support the contention that he wants a Middle East where all nations and faiths co-exist peacefully.
Does President Obama really want to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? Early leaks indicate that President Obama will agree to a treaty that allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium, that provides no way to effectively verify that the terms of the agreements are being fulfilled, that isn’t even written, that allows Iran to develop inter-continental missiles capable of hitting the United States, and that allows Iran to develop a nuclear bomb in only ten years.
Can ignorance, naivety, and/or arrogance explain why President Obama might think such an agreement would lead to a more peaceful region and world? Or, are President Obama’s ideological beliefs so strong or his hatred of our country so intense that he is blinded to reality? Or, is it possible that President Obama’s objective is not world peace and not the security of the United States?
President Obama’s past actions in the Middle East and the leaks about the nuclear agreement he seems to be willing to make with Iran suggest that the results, if not the intent, of President Obama’s agreement with Iran is that Iran will have nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles and this will lead to a Middle East arms race and eventually to a world war.
