It’s become obvious in the US-Iran negotiations that the US administration will not stop Iran from going nuclear. Only Congress can. And you will elect Congress.
Shortly after the upcoming election in November the US will decide whether Iran gets a nuclear bomb.
We freely concede:
Immigration is a critical issue.
Likewise, heath care.
And economic recovery.
Ditto, Ebola and this country’s readiness, or lack thereof, to meet this frightening, lethal challenge.
But overriding all these critical issues is this: Will this country let Iran develop a nuclear weapon — and the technology to deliver it?
It seems clear what the outcome of the current negotiations with Iran will be: To allow Iran to retain a threshold nuclear capacity.
The US is not insisting that Iran close down its nuclear program.
The US is not even favoring a bill in Congress to stiffen sanctions against Iran should these negotiations fail.
They will fail, or will be further prolonged, which is the same thing, since Iran has ceded not a single point in these negotiations.
Iran still insists on its right to a nuclear program sufficient to produce a nuclear bomb, and to deliver it. Basically, the US has not rejected the Iranian recalcitrance.
The only hope to stop Iran is the US Congress.
Will Congress not only reimpose sanctions on Iran, but stiffen them, if the negotiations fail to close down Irans nuclear program?
Will Congress back Israel if Israel decides it can no longer face the existential danger from an Iran on the brink of a nuclear weapon?
As you decide who to vote for on the national level this year, we urge you to evaluate the candidates, above all else, on the Iran question.
It will shape our lives more than anything else.
A nuclear Iran would kick off a Middle East nuclear arms race — as if the region were not already volatile enough.
A nuclear Iran would increase the availability of nuclear material for a terrorist dirty bomb. Does anyone doubt that terrorists who indifferently behead people would not use a nuclear weapon if they had it?
Even though Shiite Iran and Sunni ISIS are enemies, a nuclear Iran would embolden ISIS.
A nuclear Iran would remove whatever restraint an increasingly adventurous Russia has from improving its own nuclear arsenal in quantity and quality and from threatening to use it, implicitly or explicitly.
A nuclear Iran would increase the chances of nuclear threats generally, from China to North Korea to Brazil; perhaps from Pakistan, too.
A nuclear Iran would endanger Israel, thus dramatically increasing that country’s willingness to launch a preemptive attack on Iran. This could easily trigger a massive conventional war in the Middle East that would make this past summer’s 50-day war between Israel and Hamas look like child’s play.
A nuclear Iran would come to dominate foreign affairs around the world, overshadowing such critical battles as the war against Ebola, and the need for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Lebanon.
The IJN does not endorse political candidates. We urge voters — and 98% of IJN readers are registered voters — to question each of the national candidates on how serious they are about exercising their vote in Congress to stop Iran.
Copyright © 2014 by the Intermountain Jewish News
