Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Trump Phenomenon Tip of Iceberg

What's going on with the Donald Trump phenomenon? I got a note from friend Tim Garner who sent me a link to an opinion piece by Glenn Reynolds in USA Today expounding on the popularity of not only Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. You can go to it here. Reynolds's basic point is that the political class is out of touch with everyday Americans and their concerns, and people are looking for solutions outside of the bromides they typically hear from the same old insiders. Reynolds writes, "Trump’s rise is, like that of his Democratic counterpart Bernie Sanders, a sign that a large number of voters don’t feel represented by more mainstream politicians." He is unquestionably right in that assessment.

Where he isn't right is in his contention that the "ruling class" and the political class are the same thing, and in his statement that the big problem is that this ruling class presents an unbroken wall where "On many issues...the Republican and Democratic establishments agree." Anyone who has been paying even minimal attention the past several years is aware of the across-the-board gridlock resulting from irreconcilable Republican and Democratic views on things like health care, taxes, war, immigration, LGBT rights, climate change, the minimum wage, international relations, Medicare and Social Security. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have made reversing income inequality the cornerstones of their respective campaigns, for instance. In neither of the recent top-tier nor the second string Republican debates was one word spoken of it. The ruling class are the billionaires with the money. They work hard to game the system so that the political class are their puppets. The GOP almost completely is. The Democrats are not yet fully so.     

There is no question these candidates are indeed, as the author states, tapping into an angst among the rank and file that feels increasingly alienated from the political and/or ruling class. The root of the angst is that the standard of living and opportunity ladder for average Americans has stagnated for over three decades now. The problem of focusing this discontent is that the disaffected are not of one mind. The Tea Party types who like Trump (Cruz, Paul, Carson, et. al.) think government is the problem and want to devolve it. The Leftish types who like Sanders think corporatism and plutocracy are the problem and want strong government under the people's control to rein in this ruling class and force it to share the profits with the workers and provide more opportunity (free college, medical care and so on) to the average folks. It will be fascinating (maybe frightening) to see how this eventually explodes.

Getting the billionaire and corporate money out of the political campaign process is, in my view, the prerequisite for heading off the explosion and restoring better responsiveness. I am, as you likely know, in sympathy with what I referred to as the Leftish analysis.

Book Appearance in Fresno

I've been invited to introduce my book Liberally Speaking: Why Liberalism is Right for America to the Fresno County Democratic Party Central Committee's monthly meeting tonight.  This will be a 5-10 minute thumbnail near the beginning of the meeting's agenda. The meeting begins at 6:30 P.M. I will be able to offer signed books for sale, which are $21.60 including tax.

The Fresno Democratic Party meets at its office, 1035 U Street, Fresno, California, 93721-1419. I would like to thank Fresno Central Committee members Doug and Estella Kessler for extending this invitation and getting me on the agenda. They have also been good friends of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats.

Is the USA Still a Democracy?

Former President Jimmy Carter made an important statement on the Thom Hartmann radio program July 27. Asked about the effects of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions that have opened the political process up to unlimited secret campaign contributions, Carter said the United States is becoming an oligarchy. Hear his comments here.
 
 Here is the text of the exigent part of the interview.

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

This follows a recent New York Times story that found more than half the $388 million raised by the Republican candidates for president in June came from just 130 families and their businesses.

Book Appearance Today

I'd like to invite you to my book appearance today at 6:30 P.M. in Visalia at Congregation B'nai David, 1039 S. Chinowth, in the Education Room. It's being hosted by St. Paul's Episcopal Church. I'll discuss my book "Liberally Speaking," including a power point and some excerpts, have some question and answer and do signings. Light refreshments will be served. Books will be available for purchase for $21.60, including tax.

GOP Racism Revealed in Fox Poll

The most recent Fox News poll shows Donald Trump the current front runner among the Republican candidate field and an alarmingly high level of racism among the Republican electorate. Trump, who has gained notoriety among the general public for his characterizations of Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers" is the choice of 18% of Republican voters in the survey. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker comes in second with 15% and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stands in third place with 14%. None of the other galaxy of GOP candidates registers in double figures. The poll was jointly conducted by Anderson Robbins, which usually surveys for Democrats, and Shaw & Company, which usually surveys for Republicans.

To show where the minds of voters are, 59% of all those polled felt Trump is "just a loud mouth," but among Republican primary voters, 59% said they admire the Donald. The main reason? Because "he's got guts." While 64% of all those polled support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, 68% of Republican primary voters say that Trump is "basically right" in his views about Mexican immigrants. The picture of GOP voters that emerges is that of a bloc sorely out of touch with the general public and infected with admiration for those who spew racist invective, so long as it is done emphatically.  

The first Republican debate is in three weeks and will feature the ten candidates who score highest in an average of popularity polls. Recent results practically guarantee Trump will be on the stage.

   

Make a Difference: Call the White House

One of the greatest threats to our democratic system is the presence of unlimited and untraceable special interest campaign cash. It's a theme I've returned to often in these pages. I also address the subject in detail in chapter 14 of my book, Liberally Thinking. The goals of the plutocrats are twofold. First, they wish to make candidates dependent upon their "contributions" to gain and hold their elected seats. This also serves to render the politicians pliable to supporting legislation or executive actions that cater to the special interests' priorities rather than those that would serve the general public interest. Issues like wages and environmental concerns come readily to mind.

Second, by removing  any spending restraints and keeping their political spending secret, they assiduously work to propagandize the electorate to support their corporate or personal agenda against the public's own interest. They turn an election, which is supposed to be a contest of votes, where they are weak, into a contest of money, where they are strong. By flooding the media with one message, they drown out countervailing views. This is the essence of the effect of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Now there is something you can do that can make a difference on this. Daily Kos sent out an email today appealing for people to call the White House to register their opinion on the matter, and to ask President Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose an all their political spending. He can do this without congressional approval. To get the message out, click on this link. It will take you to the Daily Kos page instructing you how to call the White House and what to say to urge the president's action.

Disclosure can make a difference. In 2010, California Proposition 23, sponsored by Valero Oil, Tesoro Oil and Koch Industries, would have gutted the state's climate change efforts. Oil companies outspent their political opponents 20-1 in the campaign, but because of the Golden State's strict disclosure requirements, the people knew whose money was behind the advertising and weren't fooled. Prop 23 lost by 2.2 million votes.   

So give it a try. It's a way you can help to have an impact on a matter that is vital to preserving fairness and balance in the democratic process.