Sunday, August 16, 2015
Met With Senator Donnelly (D-IN) about Iran. He hasn't decided. Here are the answers to his concerns.
1. He believes we have good verification. Here is what his colleague, Senator Schumer, Democrat said in opposing the deal “First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay efore we can inspect is troubling. More troubling is the fact that the US can’t demand inspections unilaterally”
2. He admits Iran is a bad actor and not trustworthy. He admits Can’t predict what will happen in future.
3. He admits Iran with nuclear weapons would be very bad and a danger to us and Israel.
4. He argues the deal allows for snapback sanctions. Sen. Schumer “And the “snapback sanctions” provisions seem cumbersome and difficult to use.”
5. He erroneously believes there will still be a break out time of 2-3 months after 10 years of them spinning countless centrifuges. It will be 2 days. What if they decide to weaponized quickly then and put their nuks on 10000 ICBMs and missiles and fire them at Israel and USA, can he guarantee we can or will stop them all. OR what if the thousands of Iranian agents in latin America smuggle dirty bombs across our porous southern border and blow up 100 city downtowns? Can he guarantee with this plan we can stop that?
6. He believes he can trust this administration to take action should Iran cheat and develop nuclear weapons. How can he believe that? ON what basis? Obama has let Islamic terrorism flourish. He pretends to fight ISIS, who are no weaker now than one year ago. Obama ignored his red lines about Syria. Under his watch Iran has conquered 4 Arab capitals. Obama was in such a hurry to pull out of Iraq that he left and the vacuum created Isis . Obama tried to get Moslem brotherhood terrorist Morsi in power in Egypt. Obama cannot even say the phrase “Islamic terror”. He would never wage war against Iran.
7. He does not understand what benefit there would be in rejecting this bad deal, even after we pointed out its many deep flaws. Sen. Schumer “After 15 years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. More important, the agreement would allow Iran, after 10 to 15 years, to be a nuclear-threshold state with the blessing of the world community. It would have a green light to be as close, if not closer, to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran would have less moral and economic force. If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After 10 years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, its nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the US and other nations. If Iran is the same nation it is today, we’ll be worse off with this agreement than without it…I am against this deal because I believe Iran won’t change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.
8. What would be a better option than this deal?
A. WHY THIS DEAL IS BAD