Iran concedes a lot in new deal, which doesn't fit the definition of appeasement in diplomatic relationsPresident Barack Obama announced today that we have reached a deal with Iran regarding their controversial nuclear program.
The deal allows Iran to continue using nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. But it requires current use of nuclear material to drop by two-thirds, and is contingent on allowing inspectors in to verify that usage is indeed for energy.
Not everyone is happy with the deal, however. Former Florida governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush had something interesting to say about the it:
“This isn’t diplomacy – it is appeasement,” Bush said in a statement. He also condemned the Iranian regime, noting: “The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist.”Characterizing the landmark deal as “appeasement” is a direct comparison to 20th century British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who negotiated an offer with Adolf Hitler to give the German chancellor the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia.
Anyone looking at this deal should understand that it’s way better than the alternative: letting Iran continue its nuclear program unwatched. The only two outcomes of that idea are 1) living in a world with another nuclear power, or 2) going to war to stop enrichment of weaponry – an alternative that some GOP presidential hopefuls might endorse, but that the American public overwhelmingly opposes.
Jeb Bush is absolutely wrong: this deal is closer to diplomacy than it is to appeasement. The U.S. negotiators have made Iran concede on a number of issues, including allowing inspectors into their previously closed-off nation.
If Iran goes back on the deal, then the time is right to talk about other options. Until that time happens, however, we should give this deal, with the strictest of enforcement, a chance.