. . . you should think the “Iran deal” through a lot better than critics like Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio have. (E.g., “Marco Rubio says Iran deal means we have to help defend Iran from Israel or other allies” — except, as the article makes clear, no, it doesn’t.)
The best way to think it through, as suggested at the time, may be to watch the President’s news conference. He lays it all out and addresses the objections. See what you think of his answers. They made sense to me.
But here’s another little piece for your consideration, issued by the White House last week:
Why U.S. and Israeli security leaders and experts support the Iran deal:
Last week, President Obama announced that the U.S. and our international partners reached a historic deal that will verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It demonstrates that America’s diplomatic leadership can bring about meaningful and lasting change that makes America and the world safer by protecting our national security as well as the security of our key allies, especially Israel.
Within hours of the deal’s announcement, President Obama phoned Prime Minister Netanyahu to emphasize the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security — a commitment that the agreement furthers by removing the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran.
The President made clear that he wouldn’t settle for anything less than a deal that blocks every pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear weapon. We got that and more. That is why several key Israeli security experts, including former generals and former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, have come it in support of this deal.
They include Efraim Halevy, who formerly headed both the Mossad and Israel’s National Security Council, who wrote that, “Without an agreement, Iran will be free to act as it wishes, whereas the sanctions regime against it will crumble in any case.”
They include Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet and former Navy commander-in-chief, who wrote that the that the deal “is the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternative… In the Middle East, 10 to 15 years is an eternity, and I don’t believe that 10 or 15 years from now the world will stand by and watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons.”
That also is why 60 bipartisan U.S. national security experts came out in support of the agreement, recognizing that: “No agreement between multiple parties can be a perfect agreement without risks. We believe without this agreement, the risks to the security of the U.S. and its friends would be far greater. We have also not heard any viable alternatives from those who oppose the implementation of the JCPOA.”
Building a bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. This deal not only redesigns Iran’s Arak reactor so it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, it also drastically reduces the number of centrifuges and the stockpile of uranium that Iran would need. Here’s a quick look at the difference this deal makes:
Equally important is the fact that this deal puts in place extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection to ensure that Iran complies with their commitments. From the minute the materials that could be used for a weapon comes out of the ground to the minute it is shipped out of Iran, international inspectors will have eyes on it and anywhere Iran could try and take it.
Check back in at WhiteHouse.gov/Iran-Deal to get regular updates and info that outline the key components of the deal, and follow the new White House Twitter handle @TheIranDeal, which will ensure that folks get the facts on the deal.
Thanks. More soon —
Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement
The White House
Quote of the Day
Very few American investors buy any stock for the sake of something which is going to happen more than six months hence, even though its probability is exceedingly high; and it is out of taking advantage of this psychological peculiarity of theirs that most money is made.~John Maynard Keynes
Request email delivery