Unclear nuclear future

admin

Daniel Maibenco, Columnist

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress in March. It was supposed to be nothing out of the ordinary. Many foreign leaders have visited Washington D.C. and have occasionally spoken to Congress.

This time was different. President Obama and his administration are fighting with Boehner and a bipartisan caucus over a proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

For the past several months, Secretary of State John Kerry has been meeting with Iranian officials and trying to broker a nuclear deal.

This proposed deal is increasingly problematic to say the least.

After all, Iran is the sworn arch enemy of Israel: the only true ally of the U.S. in the Middle East.  It is widely speculated that if this nuclear deal is signed, Iran will then develop a nuclear weapon to use against Israel. If that should happen, it would cause a major war. The U.S. may be indirectly drawn into it if our aid is requested.

Obama and Kerry are determined to forge some sort of foreign policy legacy. To them, the best thing to do is sign a nuclear deal.

Also worth noting: many fear that if the leaders of Iran want to attack Israel, will they want to attack the U.S. too? A nuclearized Iran might embolden others. For me, ISIS immediately comes to mind.

Due to all the concerns and the fact that Iran did not live up to its previous nuclear agreements, Boehner and others want to sanction Iran. But many congressmen, especially Democrats, are still trying to decide if it is better to support a nuclear deal with Iran or sanction them.

Given all the facts, all of this seems to have been blown out of proportion from a single invitation. Boehner did invite Netanyahu to speak to Congress, but it was solely to speak about the nuclear threat posed by Iran.

One issue that can be seen as important is the threat of terror. If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon against will the U.S., ISIS or al Qaeda may try to gain access to them. I think the threat of any trigger happy terrorist gaining nuclear arms to use against the U.S., Europe, etc. should be enough to avoid a deal with Iran. But, that is not the case. Obama wants to see his vision of peace play out.

But the more important remaining question is: why is the Obama administration campaigning against the interests of our ally?

One can see that ever since Obama was elected, he has not been helpful to Israel. That is rather strange considering the U.S. Presidential stance since 1948 has been pro-Israel. That includes loyal Democrats Harry S. Truman and Bill Clinton.

I believe that no deal with Iran should be made. They should be sanctioned namely because they have been secretly building up their nuclear capabilities against the wishes U.S. and the U.N. A deal would just further legitimize the possibility of a nuclear weapon being developed.

Hopefully in the coming days, our Congressmen can put politics aside and honestly weigh out the pros and cons of a nuclear Iran. The fate of the Middle East for years to come is in the balance.