Wednesday, July 15, 2015

One Thing I DID Think was Very Positive in the Iran Agreement

I'm not going to get all techy here, but I did think this was fascinating.  William Broad, writing in the NY Times said ...


Well let me just republish his first 4 paragraphs. (full story)  It gives me hope...
.
A bipartisan group of nuclear and Middle East experts, including five of President Obama’s former senior advisers on Iran, wrote a public letter last month describing the emerging nuclear deal with Iran as weak. They called for a number of improvements, and described the strengthening as a bare-minimum requirement to win their support for the complicated accord.
The letter was widely seen as laying down standards that, if unmet, could rally enough support in Congress to kill the deal.
As unveiled Tuesday in Vienna, the accord runs to 109 pages of fine print, long lists and paragraph after paragraph of mind-numbing jargon.
Even so, many of the new particulars bear on the perceived gaps raised in that letter and, more generally, on what critics and backers of the diplomacy have clashed over for months: whether the pact represents a formidable bar to Iran as a nuclear power or a muddle of half-measures and unwarranted concessions.

“This explains why it took so long,” Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington, said of the negotiation. “I rate this as one of the most complex agreements — if not the most complex — ever to deal with nuclear issues. It’s much stronger that we expected.”

No comments: