World Leaders Weigh In On What Exactly The Iran Nuclear Deal Means
According to alarmists, the Iran Nuclear Deal, which is currently being hotly debated in the United States and abroad, will bring about a fiery global apocalypse from which no one will survive.
According to supporters, the deal will usher in an unprecedented era of peace, signified by an immediate multi-regional, multi-religious and multi-lingual group hug that will culminate in everyone making heart-shaped s’mores together.
The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle, but that is not a place politicians or pundits like to live.
It's all or nothing. Live or die. Salvation or disaster.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and host at Fox News, has called the deal "idiotic" and insisted it "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."
Following his tasteful Holocaust reference, he also said the deal “should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people.”
However, not everyone agrees with this sentiment, including leading academics.
Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, said not implementing the deal would likely lead to a collapse of sanctions, which would then allow Iran to "develop its nuclear capacity with few constraints."
If this sounds insufficiently ominous, Professor Walt did indicate a second possible scenario: "A preventive war that would give Iran a powerful incentive to acquire a bomb and only reduce its capacity to do so temporarily.’’
Mike Huckabee, a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, disagrees, largely because trusting the Iranians is "naive."
However, blind trust is not a necessary component for supporting the deal. The six nations that finalized the agreement — China, France, Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States — included a "snap back" clause that would immediately re-impose sanctions if an eight-member panel determined Iran had violated nuclear restrictions.
Even so, this safety protocol does not have everyone convinced. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal "a bad mistake of historic proportions" early on.
This statement failed to generate headline-making buzz, and so, as other leaders hailed the deal as perfect or disastrous, Netanyahu stepped up his rhetoric and stated plainly, "This deal will bring war."
If this sounds too much like the regular old war we are used to with missiles, machine guns and incendiary bombs, Netanyahu also warned of a nuclear arms race in the region, which would ensure the Middle East will somehow become exponentially more terrifying than it already is.
This has people understandably worried, but there has also been a tendency to forget there already is a war in the region.
ISIS has torn across the region with little effective resistance, and a strengthened Iran, aided by the lifting of sanctions, would be an effective force to aid Iraq and Syria in fighting the Islamic State.
This is likely why Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called the agreement "a catalyst for regional stability."
Similar statements have been made by other leaders in the Middle East, and even the initially wary Saudi Arabian government has given some restrained support to the deal.
Of course, the most noted advocate of the deal is one of its chief architects. President Obama recently called the Iran Nuclear Deal the "strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated."
If this seems arrogant, another architect, British Prime Minister David Cameron, said the accord will "keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and that will help to make our world a safer place."
Cameron went on to say, "There is a real opportunity for Iran to benefit from this agreement in terms of its economy."
Cameron's second point is the one most often missed, but it is, perhaps, the most important. This deal does not magically prevent Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon, nor does it hand them one.
What it really does is it removes the crippling consequences of extraordinarily effective sanctions and offers the nation an opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, the global economy.
It will give the nation 10 to 15 years to decide that things like food, bridges and public services are much more pleasurable than a nuclear weapon, as well as help it realize the inevitable conflict a nuclear weapon would bring.
Once the people realize that, the world really will be an infinitely safer place.