-

The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.

-

viewpoint

Dangers of ditching diplomacy

| Wednesday, April 1, 2015

March 31 was the deadline to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. It is necessary to recognize what exactly is at stake.

One need only consider the alternatives to diplomacy in order to see that any efforts to undermine a deal with Iran would be a major mistake. The alternative to the current negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program is no deal at all, an outcome detrimental to all parties involved.

Experts such as Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst on Iran, would agree that without a deal, Iran will have the opportunity to increase its uranium enrichment capacity. That means if the U.S. and Iran fail to reach an agreement — which several members of Congress are trying to ensure — Iran would be several steps closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon and bringing the nuclear club to ten.

If we back away from the negotiation table too quickly, it is likely that harsher sanctions will be imposed on Iran, resulting in further isolation and the potential for hostilities. The dangers of ditching diplomacy are real. Abandoning a deal with Iran could escalate into a march to war — with costs far greater than any of us can afford. As president of Global Zero: Notre Dame, I’m committed to supporting negotiations with Iran because we know what is at stake. I hope our elected officials do too.

Theresa Rinaldo
Class of 2016

The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Tags: , ,

About Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor can be submitted by all members of the Notre Dame community. To submit a letter to the Viewpoint Editor, email viewpoint@ndsmcobserver.com

Contact Letter
  • Johnny Whichard

    What “deal” do you want? Iran shouldn’t have any nuclear capacity whatsoever.

    • Arafat

      Using Theresa’s logic, as I understand it, she would have argued for Hitler having nuclear capabilities.