Dangers of ditching diplomacy
Letter to the Editor | 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.
Class of 2016
The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.