Strong support for the Iran-US nuclear deal.

The deal of a generation

I'm with Slate's Fred Kaplan on this one.  It's a win-win for everyone, and does nothing what cynical critics are suggesting it does.  Namely, the plan does not allow Iran to enrich during the next 6 months.  According to the White House fact sheet:

• Iran will dilute any near-20% uranium stock down to 5% or otherwise make it incapable of being weaponized -- echos of the US - Russia Megatons to Megawatts program.
• No enrichment over 5%.
• 3.5% uranium stockpile cannot be increased during the 6 month period.
• No installation of new centrifuges.
• No use of next-generation centrifuges.
• No new construction of enrichment facilities.
• No new centrifuge production beyond what is needed to replace damaged ones.
• Half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and 75% at Fordow must be left inoperable.
• Stop Arak reactor work.
• Provide daily access to IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow.
• Expand access to Arak reactor.

Contrary to what cynical conservatives have said, the agreement sets Iran's weaponization abilities back, with the reversal of near-20% stocks back to 5%, and the halting of enrichment work towards that 20% goal.  If you read the information carefully, yes, Iran is allowed to enrich...to 3.5% to maintain stock.  They're worse off 6 months from now, if Iran were pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

All about the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Under the NPT, Iran, as any other nation, has a right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  The portion that Iran has not acquiesced to, that has the US, Israel and everyone else up in arms about, is the lack of transparency and cooperation required -- safeguards -- by the NPT to enforce it.  This is the primary conflict: Because Iran had not accepted oversight on all of its enrichment work, others saw as an active nuclear weapons program -- if, after all, you're not doing anything bad, why be sneaky?

The failures of Conservatives

So what do conservatives have, to gripe about?  Did they really expect Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program?  When you understand that some of these critics -- John Bolton, anyone? -- are a bunch of hypocritical jerks who failed in their North Korea engagement, why should we listen to them?

Let's look at that North Korea issue for a moment.  Remember that it was under President Bill Clinton that we had a framework with North Korea, by which, for the first time IAEA was able to inspect and monitor NK's facilities, which were halted in its goal of nuclear weaponization.  And it was the Bush Administration that, post-9/11, labeled Iran and NK as part of the "Axis of Evil", whereupon all that was built up in the Clinton Administration was dismantled.  NK promptly discarded verification protocols and restarted its weaponization program.  It turns out, poking people in the eye doesn't make them more amenable to you.

This is what I do know: President Obama may have just played a major role in the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria and shutting down Iran's nuclear weapons program.  These two, once intractable global issues are on their way towards suitable resolution, serving as counterpoint to the ineptness of conservative wonks in the world of diplomacy.