We're offering two good reads this morning on the Iran nuclear agreement which, to absolutely nobody's surprise, is under mindless assault by "just say no" Republicans and Likudniks alike. Here are brief tastes, but please read the entire op/ eds.
Fareed Zakaria lays out some facts that make opposition to the agreement all the more incomprehensible and appalling:
Let’s imagine that the opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran get their way: The U.S. Congress kills it. What is the most likely consequence? Within one year, Iran would have more than 25,000 centrifuges, its breakout time would shrink to mere weeks and the sanctions against it would crumble. How is this in the United States’ national interest? Or Israel’s? Or Saudi Arabia’s?Philip Gordon takes a historical perspective and concludes:
If the U.S. Congress kills the current Iran deal and the alternative approach leads the Iranians to come back to the table and accept a much better agreement, it will deserve enormous credit. If, as seems far more likely, the death of this deal instead leads Iran to resume the expansion of its nuclear program even while under sanctions and the threat of force, just as it has for the past decade, Congress will have made a historic mistake. And the next generation will wonder why we did the same thing all over again and expected a different result.In the meantime, diplomats from Great Britain, France and Germany (all co-signers of the agreement with Iran) are in Washington to argue the case for the agreement. We hope they're not wasting their time with Republicans, who want to deliver a defeat to President Obama no matter what the cost to U.S. and Israeli security; best to deal with potential spineless Democratic defectors (=cough= Sen. Menendez =cough=) who may be influenced to do the right thing.
