Why Science Demands We Keep The Iran Nuclear Deal
“But if we end the deal and reimpose sanctions, all the nuclear non-proliferation policy victories immediately dissolve. The current agreement gives us a decade of peace, 25 years of absolute accountability, and regular inspections that ensure the stockpiles of radioactive materials include nothing suitable for creating a nuclear weapon. The rest of the world’s scientific experts agree. If Trump has evidence that there’s something else afoot, he owes it to the American people and the world to present it. The prior two secretaries of energy were Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz: prominent atomic and nuclear physicists; today’s secretary of energy is Rick Perry, who has been silent on the Iran nuclear deal since the 2015 diatribe that some speculate got him this job in the first place. If the United States rejects and pulls out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we’ll see one of our greatest fears come true: ‘America First’ equates to ‘America Alone.’”
In 2015, the culmination of 13 years of intense negotiations between the United States, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran all came to fruition with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known commonly as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Iran agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association, to non-enrichment and non-proliferation terms, and in in return had sanctions against them lifted. Nuclear power, as has been the case since Eisenhower, has been there for the energy benefit of all humanity, and this deal was what put that in place. Trump, meanwhile, has come out and called this one of the worst deals in American history. Is that true, though?
Let’s take a look at what the science actually says about nuclear weapons, enrichment, and the true dangers, and then compare it to the deal. I think you’ll come to the same conclusion as me: that this deal is not only worth keeping, it’s a stroke of genius.