The U.S. and some of its friends shook hands on a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran this week. In exchange for limiting nuclear stockpiles, the agreement lifts sanctions that some say have crippled Iran's economy. Will this deal promote peace and keep Iran from building nuclear weapons? Or did it go too easy on an aggressive government, dangerously placing too much trust in the wrong regime? Let's see what different sides have to say.
But first, we want to let you know about a new post on the AllSides blog. This week, freelance political writer Beth Ballentine writes about what she believes is an even bigger internal threat to America than political polarization. We invite you to read it and share your own opinion in the comments.
Snippets from the Right
"But is Obama’s bet a reasonable one? Is he playing blackjack or the lottery?
In an interview with Ruth Marcus and myself for The Post’s Campaign Close-up series, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) describes Obama’s approach to Iran as 'dangerously naive.' 'I think he’s misjudging what the Iranians want,' Graham argued. 'And the best evidence of what they want is what they’re doing right now to destabilize the region without nuclear weapons.
There is no evidence that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a Gorbachev-like figure. Iran gives every indication of being an aggressive, revolutionary power. It is rallying, arming and directing military forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The reported agreement to partially lift the arms embargo against Iran — a dramatic concession — must seem to the United States’ Sunni allies and partners like de facto U.S. recognition of Iranian spheres of military influence across the region. Because it is."
Snippets from the Left
New York Times
"The final deal with Iran announced by the United States and other major world powers does what no amount of political posturing and vague threats of military action had managed to do before. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics.
The deal, the product of 20 arduous months of negotiations, would obviously have provided more cause for celebration if Iran had agreed to completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities. But the chances of that happening were effectively zero, and even if all of Iran’s nuclear-related buildings and installations were destroyed, no one can erase the knowledge Iranian scientists have acquired after working on nuclear projects for decades."
Snippets from the Center
Christian Science Monitor
"The answer appears to be somewhere in between, according to some former administration officials and nuclear experts who have begun poring over the 100-plus pages that make up the most technical and detailed accord ever reached for limiting a country’s nuclear development.
The deal will very likely prohibit Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon for the next decade or more – but for critics who wanted to see Iran stripped of all nuclear capability, that is hardly a win for the world. The deal does not grant Iran the sanctions relief it craves until it begins complying with the agreement’s obligations – but for critics, that will still leave Iran with a windfall to do its regional mischief."
Discover more on this topic on AllSides.