Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal...Points of view.

   

     The Nuclear Deal being hammered out between many countries of the world and Iran has captivated the populations around the globe since the process started.  We are now at a point where our government has to either approve or reject it.  The entire process has centered around blocking Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb and pose a threat to world peace.

     

     There has been a lot of questions and concerns about this deal, and I wanted to get to some sort of understanding.  Notice I did not say "Truth".  As I see it, the truth will only be arrived at in the years to come no matter which way the government decides to go.

     So wanting to know what the deal entails, I started reading articles on both sides of the issue at hand.  Some have asked about the details.  From what I have read, not all the details are known to the general public and maybe not even congress.  So here my search started.  I began with the article by (Noah Pollak :The Weekly Standard. "The Iran Deal, Explained") 

What we get:
                 Iran reduces by about half the number of centrifuges actively enriching uranium.  Right now they have 16,000 centrifuges of which 9,000 are currently working with the others on standby. (H.A. Feiveson of the magazine Truthout)  On the (whitehouse.gov) website officials say there are 20,000 centrifuges and after the deal goes into effect there would be 6,104 for the next ten years.
                      Iran reduces its stockpile of enriched uranium from five tons to 300 kilograms. (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard).  The White House reports that right now Iran has enough in the stockpile to make from eight to ten nuclear bombs.  This deal, if approved, would reduce the stockpile by 98 percent not allowing them to make a nuclear bomb. (whitehouse.gov)

                      Iran would repurpose its heavy water reactor in Arak so it does not produce plutonium. (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard)  The White House explains that this reactor would be redesigned so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium.  Iran can not build another reactor for at least 15 years.  Spent fuel rods will be sent out of the country.  This part of the deal means Iran will no longer have a source for weapons grade plutonium for 15 years. (whitehouse.gov)

                     An unspecified increase in inspections by the 
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard)   For this the White House explains that Iran has "committed to extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".  (Sam Jones and Alex Barker wrote in an article entitled "Five key points of the Iran nuclear deal explained") that there is a big sticking point.  Requests for inspections are subject to conditions and follow a complex request and approval process.  Quoting the authors "If concerns have not been resolved within two weeks of an IAEA request to visit a suspected site, the matter will be taken to the joint commission.  This body has a week to attempt to find a solution or vote to require an inspection.  Iran will then have three days to comply.  In total the process can take 24 days." (www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f7dab4ae-2491-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html#axzz3mg8BKDtK)   I am think that would be enough time to move equipment to a new location secretly.

What Iran gets:

    Sanctions:

•                   Almost every type of U.S., EU, and UN sanctions lifted.
•                   Repeal of six UN Security Council resolutions declaring the                           Iranian nuclear program illegal.
•                   Top IRGC and Quds Force terrorists removed  from the                                 sanctions list, including Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's                             campaign against U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Ahmad Vahidi,                             mastermind of the 1994 Jewish community center bombing in                       Argentina that killed 85 people.
•                   The removal from the sanctions list of approximately 800                               people and legal entitles, including 23 out of 24 Iranian banks.
•                  One hundred to one hundred fifty billion dollars to be unfrozen                      and given to Iran with no restrictions on its use to purchase arms                    and fund terrorism, including funding for Hezbollah, and the                          Assad regime in Syria. (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard)

     The White House website did not comment on the lifting of sanctions. (whitehouse.gov) did post that you can read all 159 pages of the Iran nuclear agreement on Medium at (https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/introduction-fcb13560dfd9)

Nuclear Program:

• Iran keeps every one of its nuclear centrifuges (20,000)
• Iran keeps its entire physical nuclear infrastructure, including the enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz and the nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
• Iran permitted to continue research and development on all of its advanced centrifuge designs, reducing nuclear breakout time at the end of the deal to weeks.
• Iran permitted to transition its allowed enrichment of uranium from older centrifuge designs to advanced designs.
• No "anywhere, anytimes" inspections.  Iran can delay inspection of any site for at least 24 days.
• No requirement that Iran fully disclose past nuclear weapons research and development (known as the PMD issue>
• The P5+1 western powers pledge to collaborate with Iran on nuclear technology.
• Restriction on enrichment--part of the "sunset" of the deal--are lifted after eight years.
• If Iran is thought to have violated the deal, in order to "snap back" sanctions a dispute resolution process must be undertaken that can last two and a half months, after which the matter can be referred to the UN Security Council. At the UNSC, the re-imposition of sanctions can be vetoed by Russia, which stands to earn billions of dollars from arms sales to a non-sanctioned Iran. (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard)

The White House stated "And should Iran violate any aspect of this deal, the U.N., U.S., and E.U. can snap the sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy back into place. (https://whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal) The White House made no mention of what could happen in the U.N. Security Council with a Russian veto.

Concessions unrelated to nuclear program:  (Noah Pollak: Weekly Standard)

• Ballistic missile embargo lifted after eight years.
• Conventional arms embargo lifted after five years.
• Iran keeps U.S. hostages.

     An interesting point of view or opinion from Andrew C. McCarthy, a policy fellow at the National Review Institute wrote an article entitled "How the GOP Pretends Not to Authorize Obama's Agenda", goes as far as to say that the GOP is pretending to be against Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal but really being for it.  Read his article.  It is interesting and food for thought. (www.nationalreview.com/article/423679/corker-cardin-congress-obama-iran-nuclear-deal)

      As for how the citizens of the United States feel about this deal; it is subject to bias.  We are being told how the people feel based on a small sampling of people.  "The CNN/ORC poll was conducted by telephone September 4-8 among a random national sample of 1,012 adults.  Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points." (Jennifer Agiesta: CNN Polling Director)

       There are some 300 million people in the United States of which 1,012 were sampled.  So if my math is correct that is a 0.003 percent sampling.  I am not sure letting 1,012 people out of 300,000,000 to be used as to how I see this situation.  As a former science teacher, I find this sample to be way too small to have any validity.   The rule of thumb for any experience is:  the larger the amount of test results/data, the more accurate your findings will be.  Another rule of thumb is about numbers is:  you can get numbers to say anything you want.

     Final thoughts.  If this deal is approved, how we will know if Iran nefarious intentions of not following the parameters of the negotiated agreement.  To address repeated failures of the U.S. intelligence abilities Pulitzer Prize winner (George F. Will of the Washington Post) has stated his opinion in a July 29th edition of the paper and I quote "Verification depends on U.S. intelligence capabilities, which failed in 2003 (Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs...(Weapons of mass destruction), in 1968 (North Vietnam's Tet offensive, and in 1941 (Pearl Harbor).  As  Reuel Marc Gerecht says in "How Will We Know? The coming Iran intelligence failure" [the Weekly Standard, July 27], "The CIA has a nearly flawless record of failing to predict foreign countries' going nuclear(Great Britain and France don't count)."  

     Now to be fair, we do not know of all what they have found out over the years that have spared us many unfortunate situations.

     The voters and citizens of the United States feel they are in the vacuum of not knowing about decisions made by our elected government officials.  I have heard others express that they are not being represented nor told all of what is known by our government.   Many have expressed that they do not know what is involved in this possible Iran Nuclear Deal, but now we have information about the deal.  Again go to (https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/introduction-fcb13560dfb9) and after you read through the BLAH, BLAH, BLAH part you can read the details.  Freedom and representative government is maintained by an involved and knowledgeable citizenry.  Complacency towards the functionings of the government by a country's citizens will only lead  to decisions and laws that limit the people's freedoms in the end.

Sources:

[Why the Iran Deal Makes Obama's Critics So Angry] 

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/putting-ukraine-in-its-place/361627/

Gary Langer:[Majority Favors Iran  Nuclear Deal Despite Doubts That It'll Work (POLL)]

abcnews.go.com/politics/majority-favors-iran-nuclear-deal-doults-work-poll/story?id=32568609

Jennifer Agiesta: CNN Polling Director: [Poll: Americans skeptical Iran will stick to nuclear deal]

www.cnn.com/2015/09/13/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-poll/

H.A. Feiveson: [The Iran Deal Explained]

www.truth-out.org/news/item/32345-the-iran-deal-explained

Sam Jones and Alex Barker: [Five key points of the Iran nuclear deal explained]

www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f7dab4ae-2491-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html#axzz3mg8BKDtK

Andrew C. McCarthy: [How the GOP Pretends Not to Authorize Obama's Agenda]

www.nationalreview.com/article/423679/corker-cardin-congress-obama-iran-nuclear-deal

Brakkton Booker: [Vote to Reject Iran Nuclear Deal Fails, Handing Victory to Obama]

www.nor.org/sections.thetwo-way/2015/09/1043924083/vote-to-down-iran-nuclear-deal-details-senate-democrats-hand-victory-to-obama

Scott Clement: [56 percent of people support Obama's Iran deal.  But they don't think it will work.]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2015/07/20/56-percent-of-people-support-obamas-iran-deal-but-they-don't-think-it-will-work/

George F. Will: [With Iran deal, Obama makes bad history]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-iran-deal-obama-makes-bad-history/2015/07/29/642fcdc2a-3553-11e5-adf6-7227f338_story.html

Noah Pollak: [The Iran Deal, Explained]

http://www.weeklystandard.com

[The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon]

https://whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal