The multimillion dollar question today is whether or not the deal reached between the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany with Iran is good or bad. As with all such questions the answer is always it depends, or compared to what. For countries that stand to benefit from oil/petroleum related trade with Iran the deal is good. For countries that could stand to benefit from potential lifting of arms trade embargoes related to Iran the deal is good. For countries that are not considered to be "the great Satan" by those who really run the Iran the deal is good.
For my two cents, the deal is meh? First, I am not really worried about whether such a deal is good for Israel, good for Saudi Arabia, good for (insert the name of any country here), other than whether or not being good/bad for that country is somehow a net bad for the population of the U.S. Does this deal endanger Israel--maybe, and how does endangering Israel represent a net bad for the population of the U.S.? Does this deal endanger Saudi Arabia--maybe, and see my previous sentence. Does France trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population and hamper our economic development? Does Russia trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population?
If the Russians and Chinese start engaging in arms trade with Iran, so what? Supposedly we are not talking about a nuclear arms trade, but conventional systems. Unless we believe we will need to invade Iran soon, how does Iran having current weapons systems endanger the U.S. population? According to what I have read, whether the arms embargo will be lifted remains to be determined.
Second, and most importantly, I am not certain that the world became more or less dangerous regardless of whether or not this deal is accepted by all parties. I remain unconvinced that this deal will truly slow/reduce/end Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons. I also remain unconvinced that a nuclear armed Iran is any greater as a threat to the U.S. population than say a nuclear armed Pakistan, a nuclear armed China, a nuclear armed Russia, etc. "Great Satan" comments aside, do we really believe that the Iranian government/leadership would really be any more willing to use nuclear weapons against any population? Maybe I am just an eternal optimist here, but even the former Soviets did not think using the nuclear arsenal was a good idea.
To me a more interesting question is the idea of the U.S. House of Representatives taking a 60 day period to look the deal over and say yes or no. Seems to me if this deal represents a binding treaty, then the U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to ratify the treaty or not ratify the treaty, and the President of the U.S. has no say regarding the ratification process. If this is not a treaty and the House says no to the agreement, if this is not done as the passage of a law saying no--which requires both the House and Senate to pass it--then how can the president of the U.S. veto the House decision, particularly since the law already exists giving the House the 60 day review period to say yes or no to this agreement? I need to review the passed law that gives the House the review period in greater detail, because as I write this post, I honestly do not know the answer to this last question.
For my two cents, the deal is meh? First, I am not really worried about whether such a deal is good for Israel, good for Saudi Arabia, good for (insert the name of any country here), other than whether or not being good/bad for that country is somehow a net bad for the population of the U.S. Does this deal endanger Israel--maybe, and how does endangering Israel represent a net bad for the population of the U.S.? Does this deal endanger Saudi Arabia--maybe, and see my previous sentence. Does France trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population and hamper our economic development? Does Russia trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population?
If the Russians and Chinese start engaging in arms trade with Iran, so what? Supposedly we are not talking about a nuclear arms trade, but conventional systems. Unless we believe we will need to invade Iran soon, how does Iran having current weapons systems endanger the U.S. population? According to what I have read, whether the arms embargo will be lifted remains to be determined.
Second, and most importantly, I am not certain that the world became more or less dangerous regardless of whether or not this deal is accepted by all parties. I remain unconvinced that this deal will truly slow/reduce/end Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons. I also remain unconvinced that a nuclear armed Iran is any greater as a threat to the U.S. population than say a nuclear armed Pakistan, a nuclear armed China, a nuclear armed Russia, etc. "Great Satan" comments aside, do we really believe that the Iranian government/leadership would really be any more willing to use nuclear weapons against any population? Maybe I am just an eternal optimist here, but even the former Soviets did not think using the nuclear arsenal was a good idea.
To me a more interesting question is the idea of the U.S. House of Representatives taking a 60 day period to look the deal over and say yes or no. Seems to me if this deal represents a binding treaty, then the U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to ratify the treaty or not ratify the treaty, and the President of the U.S. has no say regarding the ratification process. If this is not a treaty and the House says no to the agreement, if this is not done as the passage of a law saying no--which requires both the House and Senate to pass it--then how can the president of the U.S. veto the House decision, particularly since the law already exists giving the House the 60 day review period to say yes or no to this agreement? I need to review the passed law that gives the House the review period in greater detail, because as I write this post, I honestly do not know the answer to this last question.
No comments:
Post a Comment