Positive view of Iran arms deal from MHCC panel

Controversy surrounds the proposed Iran nuclear arms deal, which is almost at its final stage and awaits Congress’ final approval. President Obama says he will figure out a way to push the deal through, regardless of the great number of naysayers holding back passage of the treaty.

On Wednesday, several Mt. Hood faculty members gathered for a midday roundtable discussion on the treaty’s political standoff in Washington, D.C. – and generally said they believe the proposal should be approved.

Participants included history instructors Pat Casey and Elizabeth Milliken, political science instructor Janet Campbell and Iran-American chemistry instructor Javid Mohtasham. They held an open discussion on what the arms deal entails and some of the arguments surrounding it.

Following years of negotiation, the United Nations Security Council – made up of five permanent members, the U.S., United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France – plus Germany (the so-called P5+1) came up with an agreement this summer which basically would allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear energy purposes for a set number of years.

The economy-crippling sanctions that have been placed on Iran would lifted, and in return, Iran would have to reduce the amount of its stockpiled uranium and follow other rules and guidelines set in the contract.

In theory, the big 5+1 can keep track of what Iran is doing so it can’t collect or make any nuclear weaponry, and Iran can start rebuilding its economy.

Supporters of the treaty say that it’s a start for a tentative trust between nations and a lot can happen in the time span that the treaty covers. This is not really about trusting Iran; it’s about starting a foundation to build trust upon, advocates say.

Naysayers feel that this is just postponing a problem. “Can we really trust Iran? What if they take their new freedom and excess revenue and just fund terrorists?” critics are asking, the panelists said. Can the inspectors really be trusted? What if Iran smuggles their uranium to the terrorists? are among their questions.

A rebuttal to those complaints came from Milliken, who supports the deal. She agrees there are valid arguments from treaty opponents, but questioned the credibility of those making up the loudest opposition. Do these people an agenda? How informed are they?

Milliken told the audience, “We made a similar type agreement with the Soviets and they were much more of a threat to the U.S. at the time” during the Cold War.” The proposed treaty is less about completely trusting Iran than a step toward easing tensions between the nations, she said.

As for the idea this will make it easier for Iran to smuggle plutonium to terrorists, the U.S. and other nations will have their eyes on Iraq. Smuggling and enriching uranium to make weapons of mass destruction is a very expensive and difficult process. If it were simple, it would have already happened, the panel members noted. As for raising any new revenue, it would be prudent for Iran to fix its failing economy, rather than resort to funding a terrorist agenda, they noted.