Iran Presidential Agreement: A One Page Summary
Since 1979, when Radical Islamic Fundamentalists took over Iran, they have focused on spreading their extremist brand of Islam across the Middle East and destroying the State of Israel.
They also began a nuclear weapons program. In response, western nations, led by the US, sought to counter it, mainly through strong economic sanctions. Some were put in place by the president and some by Congress. These sanctions enormously degraded the Iranian economy, and led the regime to seek negotiations to alleviate them.
Click here to continue reading “The Iran Presidential Agreement”
God Bless!
Fr. Dave
I very much appreciate your thoughts about the Middle East and know that you follow things closely and with your yearly visits have gathered first hand insight. Your recent paper about tribes and power and how folks choose whom to follow were helpful in understanding how other nations think. It concerns me greatly that the US leaders continue to believe that all people will come to think and act as we think they should.
Using Jesus as our model helps us to see through what seems complicated and really is pretty simple.
I also love your weekly reflections on the Sunday liturgy – read them each week.
Blessings,
Nancy
Thanks so much for your comments! I really appreciate them. I certainly enjoy the process of reflecting and then writing out my thoughts on the Gospels. the Iran situation is not over yet, and Congress may yet improve it.
Thank you, Fr. Dave, for distilling this hotly debated issue and identifying the key questions – non-compliance and consequences. Given Iran’s refusal to allow no-notice inspections, we have reason to be concerned about both.
As you noted, our Lord’s approach two-thousand years ago is a lesson for us. Too bad that some of our nation’s leaders have yet to learn it.
Jesus has so much to offer nations today. They should listen more!
Iran does not have any incentive to comply. This is a bad treaty for everyone.
Pilar Burillo-Bartos
There is really nothing to enforce this agreement. Iran could cheat all it wants with no consequences.
Thank you, Father Dave, for the analysis. The situation makes one ask, “What do they think they are doing?” For the Administration to establish this deal, it would seem that either they (he) are stupid (which we know he is not, or at least the organization that is giving him directions is not), or they want to destroy our Nation. How did this happen? That we elected leaders who would destroy our Nation? I suggest that without sanctions and without very close inspections, which apparently defines the deal, Iran is given the go-ahead to destroy whatever they want.
Of course it will be Israel that is destroyed first. Is it not reminiscent of the second world war where it took pearl harbor to engage the US into defending the world? Could the destruction of Israel be what it takes to wake up this Country against the aggressors? God forbid.
I remain astounded as to why the administration thinks this is a good deal for anyone, and much less Israel.
Many principled and thoughtful people believe this agreement makes no sense.
The fact is, the ship has sailed. Iran will go from possessing 12,000kg of enriched uranium to 300, 19,000 centrifuges shrinks to 5,000 and their main reactor gets buried in concrete. Not perfect, probably not verifiable solutions but Iran is already well on its way to becoming a nuclear power – – – with sanctions fully in place.
This initiative is the best of the many bad options available. When embargoes strangle a nation of good people who are demonstrably powerless to effect change, is it still morally correct to continue them?
1) Does the embargo have a serious prospect of success?
2) Have we seriously tried alternatives?
I think the answer to both questions is, “No.” Therefore this approach is more than justified, it is mandatory. It took us half a century to figure out the embargo did not really effect our desired changes in Cuba. It is smart to reprise that mistake?
The zealots are very bad people, but they control Iran – mostly. The good news is that most of them are as old as I am. Let’s continue praying the next generation of Iranian leaders is rational.
In the meantime, Colin Powell’s 9/6 Meet the Press concise, knowledgeable interview, explains convincingly why he supports President Obama’s position. His military and political arguments persuade me. Also, I read Secretary of Energy Muniz’ rationale for supporting the agreement. His assurances, based on technology, persuade me.
What could motivate leaders of this caliber to undermine America’s position in the world? Why do hundreds of American rabbis support the agreement, they’re not irrational – and hundreds of rabbis in Israel oppose it, they’re not warmongers?
Good people disagree. At the end I conclude that what we’re doing now has not stopped the zealots.
To continue the same policy and expect different results doesn’t seem rational. Whether this is President Obama’s Chamberlain Moment – time will tell. I choose to believe this initiative shuffles the deck and will bring better results over time.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments! I actually think that the agreement offers quite spectacular and comprehensive limits to the Iranian nuclear program. I have read the whole document and it is quite comprehensive. I was impressed. Of course, it is only about limiting activities at Iranian sites that we know about, nevertheless, for those sites, the agreement severely limits nuclear activity. The problem I have is the issue of consequences. Why should Iran comply at all? They could cheat quite openly at any time and there would be no serious consequences.
As you indicated as well, the global business community is lining up at the Iranian door for business. The US and Europeans have also clearly indicated they will never use military force. Iran has no reason to even hide any nuclear activity.
There is no reason why the sanctions had to be released AT THE START of the agreement, without any Iranian changes. In addition, there is no reason why we could not have made the entire range of Iranian behavior in the Middle East part of the Agreement. After all, we entered into these negotiations in the stronger position, with Iran pleading for negotiations to end sanction relief. That is the time when we could have made several strong demands against Iranian terrorism throughout the Middle East.
Sanctions can also be targeted narrowly to the ruling elite, in the same way our sanctions against North Korea do not harm the North Korean people but only the bank accounts of the ruling elite. Sanctions can be targeted very narrowly precisely against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, The Basijj, and the Ayatollahs.
I believe that a better deal could have been made by much better negotiators. The problem now is how to salvage a bad deal that has already been made. Congressional actions are not over yet, despite the recent setback. Stay tuned for more activity there.
Finally, I appreciated very much your acknowledgement about the power of the next generation in Iran. That is where I place all my hope in the Middle East as well, in the younger generation. Unfortunately, when millions of young people demonstrated against the Iranian regime in 2009, and pleaded for US help from the President, he refused. That is when the Iranian regime knew they could et a lot from the President and not have to give up anything.
The younger generation remains, and so I still place my hope in them.
Thanks for the thoughtful and informed insights, Fr. Dave!
What scares me most is what we do not know, what is not in the main body of the agreements. There are reports of controlling “side agreements” governing our access to inspection operations and results, for example, those of the IAEA.
Absent transparency, how do we follow Colin Powell’s amendment to President Reagan’s attitude toward the Russians, “Trust and Verify.” Colin Powell’s revised dictum about today’s Iranian leadership, “Never Trust and Always Verify.”
News the last few days has talked about splits among factions of Iranian leadership. This news starts to validate the beliefs of another victim of zealotry, Anne Frank, “I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are good at heart.”
Surely there must be sane mullah humanists somewhere in the mix. Buried somewhere deep in the soul of every Iranian zealot is the realization that if Iran ever used an atomic weapon, their cities would be quickly leveled in retaliation. To what effect? Who could possibly benefit? Or do they all expect a DAESH-stye caliphate that’s the precursor of apocalyptic devastation and an immanent 2nd Coming.
I pray for the ascendance of grace-filled men of good will. This agreement seems a reasonable, if ill-timed, step forward – I think.
Thanks Bill, for writing. We share a passion for good global governance and world peace.
Yes, there is much that we do not know about the agreement, such as the side agreements with the IAEA. That is troubling for such an important new alliance with a country like Iran. How can congress vote on a deal that they cannot fully see?
I completely agree with you in guessing that there are humane mullahs in Iran. Actually, I believe the vast majority of the country is humane, reasonable, intelligent, and wants no part of the radical Islamic path the leadership has taken. After all, millions of Iranian youth demonstrated against the regime in 2009. They are a well educated class and only want a normal life like others around the world.
The problem is that Iran is a total dictatorship, and like all dictatorships, a small group protected by a powerful army can not only stay in power, but lead the nation anywhere it wants, just like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. Worse still, the ruling elite are not driven by political goals, like all other dictators, but rather by inflexible religious goals that they believe come directly from Allah. They believe no compromise is possible with the Great Satan. They actually do look for Caliphate restoration and the coming of the Twelfth Imam. In a true democracy, all the mullahs would have been thrown out of office for the idiots they are. In a dictatorship backed by the Revolutionary Guards and Al Quds Forces, they stay put.
The administration would like to believe that lifting the sanctions will bring Iran into the global community. I hope so as well. I think it will for sure bring Iran into the global community, but most likely for Iran to purchase more weapons and arms, and not for helping its long suffering people. I hope I am wrong but that is what I think will happen.
My hope is for the US to signal to the Iranian people that we will not work with the mullahs, but will support their efforts for a new Iran that protects religious freedom and economic prosperity for all.
Thank you Father Dave for your excellent commentary!!! We unfortunately are dealing with a nation, Iran that wants to destroy Israel and the United States.!! In trying to diminish their capacity to create a nuclear weapon or bomb, we are giving up to much and receive nothing but their word which has no credibility!! To give Iran 150 billion dollars is so naive for they will use it to further terrorist activities!! For the U.S.not to have inspections anytime at any moment is inconceivable for we are dealing with a nation that is untrustworthy and cheats!!!They will create a bomb and they will spread their Islamic terrorist activities and I believe Israel if it sees it is threatened it will strike first!! We are not preventing war we are possibly ushering it in!! Jesus wants peace and wants us to act intelligently and if we enter negotiations with a country that is run by terrorist extremists ,we must have verifiable inspections and consequences if the dealings are broken! This is very bad deal!!! A treaty passed by Congress with intelligent negotiations could be accomplished and should be looked into!!!
Love, Franca and Dick
Congress still has some cards to play, and I think they will. Stay tuned!
Diplomatic agreements only work if all sides are committed to them. There is no downside for Iran, nothing to lose, by just saying “yes” and everything to gain, including an immediate release of much needed cash. This is purely a short sighted political move, by a lame duck President, who is trying desperately to end on a high note.
I like your tie-in at the end, about Jesus’s actions. The key difference is politicians do things to gain popularity with their constituency, many times for short term gains, without any examination or concern of the long term impact. Jesus did not promote nor take the popular route and he always had the long term objective in mind, even if it was a tougher sell and not something to make him immediately popular. Immediate gratification vs. delayed gratification.
Yes, I have always felt that Jesus had the right approach to problems in His day, and in ours. thank you for your comments!