It will be some time before I have great-grandchildren – my eldest grandchild just turned six. But I know that my great-granddaughter won’t like the Iran nuclear deal for the same reason I don’t like political deals that trade unsustainable pensions for labor peace, nor corporate deals that lay people off in order to meet Wall Street’s quarterly expectations: What may be good in the short term is often very bad in the long term. And our nation should not be ignoring the long term.
If I was negotiating a deal with Iran I’d want to keep them out of the nuclear club permanently. In my opinion, most of the potential good that could come from an agreement with Iran was lost when we agreed to discuss anything shorter, let alone just 10 years. (The ban on Iran’s ability to import ballistic missile technology apparently expires in only eight years.)
There were two members of the nuclear club when I was born. Now there are at least eight, an addition of roughly one per decade. Anyone who cares about the long term viability of our country – indeed, our world – believes that rate of increase is not viable over the long run. Worse yet, the short term nature of this agreement, coupled with the effects of our failed North Korean agreement 20 years earlier, promises to increase the rate of nuclearization, perhaps dramatically.
Which brings up the 2016 presidential race.
I haven’t decided who I’m going to support yet. But I will be looking for the presidential candidate who will speak to the needs of our unborn future generations. I’m looking for someone who realizes 10 years is a blink of an eye – not a worthy time frame when it comes to maintaining the security of our country. I hope you agree.
Bill
P.S. Nothing above should be construed as a recommendation on how Congress should vote on the deal. Since the cat’s already out of the bag, I’m not sure rejecting the deal is any better in the long term than accepting it. Either way, we need to figure out a way to protect us from a nuclear-armed, ICBM-equipped Iran. And soon.