Since 47 Republican Senators recently deemed it appropriate to correspond directly with Iranian leadership in a blatant attempt to undermine President Obama and the administration’s efforts as part of the multinational negotiations for an Iranian nuclear proliferation agreement, would it also be deemed appropriate for Iranian leadership to now correspond directly with those same Senate Republicans?
If so, they might want to consider in their correspondence pointing out that the point of the debilitating economic sanctions imposed on Iran was to get Iran to the negotiating table which is exactly what has occurred. They may also wish to point out that the economic sanctions were so effective that Iran has agreed to unfettered inspection and verification of its nuclear sites.
The more important question that needs to be asked is whether such a verification and inspection program makes it more or less likely that Iran could build a nuclear weapon; is Iran more likely to build a nuclear weapon in the presence of inspectors or would they be more likely to build one without an agreement in place and without the presence of inspectors? The answer seems to me to be quite obvious especially when one considers that any breach of the pending agreement would result in re-instituting the economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.
Certainly the security of Israel is a major concern, but, again, the question to be posed to the Senate 47 would be whether Israel is safer from a nuclear attack if this inspection/verification agreement is in place or if no such inspection/verification process is in place? Clearly, any agreement can be violated and certainly trust in Iran is tenuous at best. However, another important question to ponder is why would Iran come to the negotiating table in the first place if it placed building a nuclear weapon to be used against Israel as a higher priority than re-entering the international economic community without the burden of the stringent economic sanctions that has seemingly brought Iran’s economy to its knees?
It is easy for many to simply write off any agreement with Iran based on Iran’s dubious history and its clear link to international terrorism. However, unless a viable alternative is offered, the only issue that really needs to be considered is whether the inspection process makes the world a safer place. Would not the world have benefited greatly if the weapons of mass destruction inspectors had been allowed to complete their work back in 2003 rather that the military approach decided by the Bush-Cheney presidency? I think most Americans would agree that cost in lives and treasure made going into Iraq in 2003 may very well may have been the greatest blunder in American history.
Most Americans would also probably agree that a military solution should never be the first option and should never be the option until all other options are exhausted. Besides, where would it end, or, rather, where would it begin? The Middle East? Probably. Parts of Africa, like in Nigeria? North Korea? Drug cartels in South America? Maybe “open carry” states, or, for that matter, maybe “concealed carry ” states? Ah, so many choices. Maybe we need to give diplomacy a chance!