Critics of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran ignore history and the
influence of perceived national interests of the countries involved in
reaching this settlement.
A New York Times article on the chronology of Iran’s nuclear ambitions points out that, “By the late 1970s, the United States becomes worried that Iran may harbor nuclear weapon ambitions.” This was after American and other western countries helped the Shah begin developing its nuclear capacity — well before the Islamic Revolution. Iran accelerated its drive for the capacity to produce a bomb under the Bush administration and only scaled back (and increased the time needed to have weapons-grade fuel) during the Obama-led negotiations. President Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq eliminated the strongest restraint on Iran when it overthrew Saddam Hussein and let the country fall apart and enabled Iran to become a key power in Iraq, which was its greatest former enemy.
Does anyone really believe that Germany, France, China and Russia would keep up or even enhance sanctions against Iran indefinitely? They only listened to President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because the U.S. was committed to working for a negotiated agreement to reduce Iran’s supply of potential fuel for an atomic bomb.
The agreed-upon deal is likely the best possible way to safeguard Israel and America precisely because it only focused only on preventing Iran from being able to quickly get the fuel needed for an atomic bomb. Such a weapon would make Iran significantly more dangerous to all than it currently is. Nor would continued sanctions prevent Iran from supporting Hezbollah, Assad and other terrorists if it felt it was in its interest to do so. Half of North Korea is starving, yet it keeps building nuclear weapons and missiles. Iran is much richer (even with sanctions) and only deals such as this one can keep it from getting an atomic bomb.