Iran Nuclear Deal

_atrk_opts = { atrk_acct:”F5LZl1a8FRh2WR”,
domain:””,dynamic: true};

(function() { var as = document.createElement(‘script’);
as.type = ‘text/javascript’; as.async = true; as.src =
“”; var s =
document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(as, s);


When we hear people say that either we do the Iran
deal or we go to war we also hear other people saying that these are not the
only two choices. I think that the people who say deal or war say that because
Iran is so close to having a nuclear bomb without this agreement that if we
want to stop Iran without the Iran deal the only way to do that will be to
attack and distract. It may be Israel that makes the first strike, or perhaps
it will be Israel and the US. Given Iran’s proximity to Israel and Netanyahu’s
rhetoric, war may be inevitable without this deal, however flawed it may be.

Accepting the Iran deal falls in the category of “no
brainer” as far as I can see, even with the new information released today
about a key inspection that Iran will be allowed to conduct. If sanctions are
going away (at least the other partners to the negotiations say that will
happen) then we are better off with the deal than without it. If Iran is
playing “bait and switch” we will soon find out and then all bets will be off
anyways. Then we will say, “recalibrating.”

[I can forgive Chuck Schumer, one of the Senators
from my state (and next in line to lead the Dems in the Senate) because
although his heart belongs to us it also belongs to Israel. There are probably
enough favorable votes that he can afford to abstain from appearing to favor an
enemy of Israel. I won’t hold a ‘no’ vote on this matter against him.]

Again, if this is not an acceptable deal, one that
postpones the development of a ‘nuke’ in Iran, we will know that soon enough.
It is the only move that promises to take the threat of a nuclear bomb in a
volatile corner of the world and move it at least a decade into the future.
By Nancy Brisson