It’s become obvious in the US-Iran negotiations that the US administration will not stop Iran from going nuclear. Only Congress can. And you will elect Congress.
Shortly after the upcoming election in November the US will decide whether Iran gets a nuclear bomb.
We freely concede:
Immigration is a critical issue.
Likewise, heath care.
And economic recovery.
Ditto, Ebola and this country’s readiness, or lack thereof, to meet this frightening, lethal challenge.
But overriding all these critical issues is this: Will this country let Iran develop a nuclear weapon — and the technology to deliver it?
It seems clear what the outcome of the current negotiations with Iran will be: To allow Iran to retain a threshold nuclear capacity.
The US is not insisting that Iran close down its nuclear program.
The US is not even favoring a bill in Congress to stiffen sanctions against Iran should these negotiations fail.
They will fail, or will be further prolonged, which is the same thing, since Iran has ceded not a single point in these negotiations.
Iran still insists on its right to a nuclear program sufficient to produce a nuclear bomb, and to deliver it. Basically, the US has not rejected the Iranian recalcitrance.
The only hope to stop Iran is the US Congress.
Will Congress not only reimpose sanctions on Iran, but stiffen them, if the negotiations fail to close down Iran’s nuclear program?
Will Congress back Israel if Israel decides it can no longer face the existential danger from an Iran on the brink of a nuclear weapon?
As you decide who to vote for on the national level this year, we urge you to evaluate the candidates, above all else, on the Iran question.
It will shape our lives more than anything else.
A nuclear Iran would kick off a Middle East nuclear arms race — as if the region were not already volatile enough.
A nuclear Iran would increase the availability of nuclear material for a terrorist “dirty bomb.” Does anyone doubt that terrorists who indifferently behead people would not use a nuclear weapon if they had it?
Even though Shiite Iran and Sunni ISIS are enemies, a nuclear Iran would embolden ISIS.
A nuclear Iran would remove whatever restraint an increasingly adventurous Russia has from improving its own nuclear arsenal in quantity and quality — and from threatening to use it, implicitly or explicitly.
A nuclear Iran would increase the chances of nuclear threats generally, from China to North Korea to Brazil; perhaps from Pakistan, too.
A nuclear Iran would endanger Israel, thus dramatically increasing that country’s willingness to launch a preemptive attack on Iran. This could easily trigger a massive conventional war in the Middle East that would make this past summer’s 50-day war between Israel and Hamas look like child’s play.
A nuclear Iran would come to dominate foreign affairs around the world, overshadowing such critical battles as the war against Ebola, and the need for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Lebanon.
The IJN does not endorse political candidates. We urge voters — and 98% of IJN readers are registered voters — to question each of the national candidates on how serious they are about exercising their vote in Congress to stop Iran.
Copyright © 2014 by the Intermountain Jewish News
WarSclerotic 
October 24, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Unfortunately, our vote in the US probably means squat. This President is definitely going to do an end around Congress for any deal. Hussein Obam has no interest in getting Congressional approval when he agrees to a bad deal.
October 24, 2014 at 12:18 AM
The author offers hopes as to what the next congress can do. Assuming Republican majorities, but not veto-proof super majorities which seem far from likely, there will be little that the next Congress can do to overwhelm Obama’s executive actions permitting sanctions to be suspended through 2016. The current plan, apparently, is to continue relief from sanctions but not to eliminate that relief by reimposing sanctions.
The author does not explain how the next Congress can do anything useful. Here’s one suggestion: pass legislation reimposing strict sanctions, let Obama veto the bill and accordingly make Obama “own” the consequences of his veto. It’s not much, but I don’t see anything more effective happening.
October 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM
I agree about the ‘super majority’ issue Dan. We’ll probably end up with the same situation we’ve had for some time now. I would, however, like to see Congress address the executive order abilities of the President and make this issue a big part of the next Congress. It’s way past time they stand up to the Office of the President.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
What Obama lacks in quantity (FDR was most), he excels in damage.
October 24, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Reblogged this on The Counter Jihad Report.
October 25, 2014 at 3:58 PM
Frighting idea that the world peace depends on the USA voters !
But a president with a nobel peace price is something, not ?
O the congress , yep that will work , as we have seen the last 6 years !