A Way To Go Down in History, but in What Role?
The question is whether Obama will become another Reagan, who, through his negotiations with Gorbachev, put an end to the Cold War, or another Chamberlain, who dared Hitler to continue his invasion.
Americans and Europeans are most concerned about Islamic State terrorism. America is not unanimous in its opinion about the nuclear agreement with Iran. Analysts agree only on one thing: If President Obama enters into this agreement, he will definitely go down in history. The most important newspapers have already made a front-page story out of that.
It is not certain, however, if the agreement will bring lasting peace between America and the Islamic Republic or, as the president’s critics warn, it will only postpone armed conflict. In other words, will Obama become another Reagan, who, through his negotiations with Gorbachev, put an end to the Cold War, or another Chamberlain, who dared Hitler to continue his invasion? These are the comparisons Americans are making.
The Democrats and supporting media, headed by The New York Times, are happy about the agreement, claiming that it will prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons for the next 10 to 15 years. And if Iran doesn't comply with the agreement, sanctions will be restored. The supporters admit that the agreement cannot guarantee the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program, but such a goal is simply unrealistic — especially considering how intransigent the Iranian negotiators are.
According to Obama’s critics, i.e., the Republicans, especially the pro-Israeli right wing, the agreement is worthless, because it doesn't provide sufficient control over its enforcement. They point out, for example, that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear inspectors would have to inform Tehran 24 hours before the intended control of Iranian nuclear installations. Meanwhile, lifting the sanctions will strengthen Iran economically, accelerating the implementation of a nuclear program.
Republican presidential candidates announced that they will unwind President Obama's nuclear agreement if they win the control of the White House. And GOP leaders in the Congress promised to introduce a bill that would block the lifting of sanctions against Iran. However, Obama could veto the bill and the Republicans wouldn't be able to override the president's veto.
Still, Republican opposition diminishes the importance of the agreement, emphasizing its instability, which reflects the division in America over the conflict with Iran. Even The New York Times admits that negotiations with dictators usually lead nowhere, and the agreements with North Korea, and more recently with Russia on the Ukraine issue, prove that.
The Washington Post probably grabbed the bull by its horns, writing in an editorial that the future of the agreement depends ultimately on whether the dialogue with Iran will soften the regime of ayatollahs and encourage them to rejoin the "Family of Nations." This is what Obama is counting on most.
Americans and Europeans are most concerned about Islamic State terrorism. America is not unanimous in its opinion about the nuclear agreement with Iran. Analysts agree only on one thing: If President Obama enters into this agreement, he will definitely go down in history. The most important newspapers have already made a front-page story out of that.
It is not certain, however, if the agreement will bring lasting peace between America and the Islamic Republic or, as the president’s critics warn, it will only postpone armed conflict. In other words, will Obama become another Reagan, who, through his negotiations with Gorbachev, put an end to the Cold War, or another Chamberlain, who dared Hitler to continue his invasion? These are the comparisons Americans are making.
The Democrats and supporting media, headed by The New York Times, are happy about the agreement, claiming that it will prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons for the next 10 to 15 years. And if Iran doesn't comply with the agreement, sanctions will be restored. The supporters admit that the agreement cannot guarantee the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program, but such a goal is simply unrealistic — especially considering how intransigent the Iranian negotiators are.
According to Obama’s critics, i.e., the Republicans, especially the pro-Israeli right wing, the agreement is worthless, because it doesn't provide sufficient control over its enforcement. They point out, for example, that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear inspectors would have to inform Tehran 24 hours before the intended control of Iranian nuclear installations. Meanwhile, lifting the sanctions will strengthen Iran economically, accelerating the implementation of a nuclear program.
Republican presidential candidates announced that they will unwind President Obama's nuclear agreement if they win the control of the White House. And GOP leaders in the Congress promised to introduce a bill that would block the lifting of sanctions against Iran. However, Obama could veto the bill and the Republicans wouldn't be able to override the president's veto.
Still, Republican opposition diminishes the importance of the agreement, emphasizing its instability, which reflects the division in America over the conflict with Iran. Even The New York Times admits that negotiations with dictators usually lead nowhere, and the agreements with North Korea, and more recently with Russia on the Ukraine issue, prove that.
The Washington Post probably grabbed the bull by its horns, writing in an editorial that the future of the agreement depends ultimately on whether the dialogue with Iran will soften the regime of ayatollahs and encourage them to rejoin the "Family of Nations." This is what Obama is counting on most.
Next article![]( "Britain and America Have Exaggerated the Greek Crisis")
