A joint plan of action was the latest development to emerge from the Iran v. World (US/Israel/Christmas Islands) saga. The document details new stipulations for the Iranian nuclear enrichment program (text here) and explains the incremental decrease of international sanctions on Iran's economy.
The highlights of the deal include that Iran taper its nuclear enrichment while allowing international inspectors to monitor progress-- daily. In return, the US will promise to probably not bomb Iran and give them access to $7 Billion in frozen overseas assets.
Let the shit storm begin.
First off, $7 billion in assets sounds substantial, right? In fact, it's only about 1% of Iran's GDP. In other words, say Iran imposed crippling economic sanctions against the US and then decided to allow us access to our assets in agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing combined,
Raw numbers aside, the political backlash has been fierce. Tom Cohen of CNN wrote an article on Monday titled "5 reasons diverse critics oppose Iran nuclear deal."
Cohen makes a legitimate case for the opposition group's diversity, including Israel, Democrats with strong ties to Israel, and Republicans combatting any Obama-led peace efforts for political clout/strong ties to Israel.
Diverse like a Christian rock album.
But most circles opposed to the deal cite serious trust-issues with Iran. It's important that we heed their advice, and it's even more important that we ignore the fact that current Iranian president Hassan Rouhani helped lead the charge for an even better deal in 2003 when he was Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
|Offered in 2003 to "open up [Iran's] nuclear program for transparency, collaborate with the U.S. in Iraq, restrain Hamas and Islamic jihad and even indirectly recognize Israel." |
BUT CAN HE BE TRUSTED?
We at American Difter urge readers to remain skeptical when it comes to trusting this Islamic nation's suspicious legal-uranium-enrichment-for-energy-purposes-even-after-repeatedly-stating-that-they-had-no-intention-to-construct-a-nuclear-weapon-because-it-violates-tenants-of-Islam-and-even-if-they-did-get-the-bomb-its-purpose-would-likely-be-to-deter-the-US-and/or-Israel-from-preemptively-attacking-their-country-which-hasn't-openly-attacked-another-country-in-over-300-years strategy.
Have a nice Tuesdift.
(Check off your reaction below-- for past articles too)