A nuclear Iran is a terrible idea. The current Iran regime is one of the most aggressive and most successful when it comes to state-sponsored terrorism. I’m not being alarmist here, just practical. History has taught us that bad things happen when extremists are in charge. Mussolini, Hitler, Mugabe, al-Assad, Kim Jong-il, Khamenei, none of these guys are shining examples of people you want to trust or negotiate with.
The deal with Iran is a mistake. An important question to ask American leadership is, “What is America’s current long-term strategic plan in the Middle East, and how does a nuclear Iran fit in?” Cue the crickets.
Regardless of whether we should have been in Iraq the second time around, we were there and we owed it to the Iraqi people (and the Kurds) to see it through. Instead, Obama pulled out and surrendered our queen to Iran, leaving the region ripe for ISIS’s picking and with Iran firmly in charge of the Middle East chessboard. America will also leave Afghanistan with the Taliban firmly in charge. “Epic fail” comes to mind, and any fifth grader could analyze the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, count to over a trillion taxpayer dollars, add up the loss of American life, and tell you these were two very bad plans poorly executed by two American presidents.
We are in one of the longest periods of sustained combat operations in the history of America, and it has taken its toll on the soul of this country. Civil and political liberties have been tossed aside in the name “patriotism.”
“Although September 11th was horrible, it didn’t threaten the survival of the human race, like nuclear weapons do.”—Stephen Hawking
Citing the current deal with Iran as a win for Obama is like America spiking the football after dropping two atomic bombs on Japan; it’s ludicrous, and both situations are no-win for humanity.
Something we keep hearing throughout this negotiation is the idea that Iran wants to build their nuclear capabilities exclusively “for peaceful applications.” In other words, for nuclear energy production, not for weapons. This is the international-diplomacy version of saying, “I buy Playboy magazine for the articles.” There is only one sane response to both claims: “Uh-huh. Sure you do.”
And even if Iran were going to build a nuclear program purely for energy production, my response would be, “And just how the hell is that supposed to be a good thing?”
We live in the 21st century. This is a time in history when America and the free world should be looking for less risky, more sustainable energy sources as alternatives to nuclear energy. Instead, we find Secretary Kerry negotiating with state sponsors of terror to give them their own nuclear capability and calling it a win when it’s three steps backward for humanity.
If America wants to display exemplary leadership, then we should inform the rest of the world that we are leading a global coalition to dismantle all nuclear weapons, for good, forever. America would also be wise to look at Germany’s plan to get rid of nuclear energy as a power source by 2022. Chernobyl and Fukushima are excellent examples of the extreme downside of the expensive energy source. (You don’t see anybody running for the hills in “Walking Dead” fashion when a solar or wind turbine farm goes down.) The amount of money needed to build, maintain, and secure nuclear facilities is staggering (just look at the U.S. Department of Energy’s $12.6B annual budget), and I don’t see the long-term return on investment.
A world where nuclear weapons still exist is not a world I wish upon my own children and future generations of America. The thought that we still have weaponized nuclear warheads in America, and would be willing to deploy them today, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, is pure insanity to me.
And making a deal with a country like Iran to further their nuclear capacity? That’s just fucking crazy.
COMMENTS
There are on this article.
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.