Over the course of the last several weeks we’ve been discussing the deal on Iran’s nuclear development program in a series of posts, here, here, here, here, and here. A number of contrasting views have been articulated.
I think (see the first post linked above) that the Iranians are not developing nuclear weapons and have not done so for the last decade which means they are as good as their word on the subject. I think they are unlikely to resume nuclear weapons development. From that I draw the inference, counter-intuitive to some, that the deal that has been negotiated gives us precious little and we could have and should have arrived at a deal that was better for us than the one that the president and his team have negotiated. I also think that a better deal will no longer be forthcoming but that preserving sanctions for as long as we can is probably better than relieving them. I neither support nor condemn the president’s deal. I just think it’s weak tea. I do not think we have a cause of war against Iran and do not think we should go to war against Iran.
Andy has articulated the view, which I consider reasonable, that the information we gather through the deal is worth whatever is relinquished through the deal. He has also correctly discerned my view that we should want regime change in Iran.
Rob has enunciated the view that Iran has continued its nuclear weapons development program, that Iran will use sanctions relief to promote mischief throughout their region, and that war with Iran is probably inevitable. We disagree on the issue of preventive war.
steve believes that the president’s deal is a tremendous achievement and that if a Republican is elected president we’ll have war with Iran.
Are those fair statements and have I left any other views out? I don’t consider disagreeing with other people an articulated view.