The Iran 'deal': America and the world are being snookered
That much ballyhooed “deal” to “halt” Iran's nuclear program is set to take effect Monday next. Would that it were.
Iran and six world powers, including the United States, made the announcement on Sunday. Do not, however, count us among the naive and ignorant touting this as the 21st-century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's “peace for our time.”
For the agreement that was bad in November is bad in January.
Iran, in exchange for $7 billion in sanctions relief ($4.2 billion in oil revenue to start), will stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent — the threshold between use for energy production and nuclear weapons — and will begin to dilute its stockpile of 20 percent uranium. It won't construct any more centrifuges for refining and will submit its existing centrifuges for international inspection.
Never mind that the diluted uranium easily can be reconstituted for use in weapons. Never mind that the inspections are open only to Iran's declared centrifuges when it's pretty much a given that it has clandestine facilities.
As John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in his exclusive Trib column on Sunday: “Loosening the sanctions provides Iran with immediate economic benefits and also reverses the global political dynamic, making it harder to ratchet the sanctions back up during the undoubtedly lengthy process of Iran reneging on the superficial and easily reversible concessions made in the Geneva negotiations.”
America and the world have been snookered. And that's nothing to celebrate.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett & taxes: Cue the tap dance
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- The Thursday wrap
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme