Do you think the Iran deal is in the best interest of the U.S.?

“Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski announced Wednesday that she will support the Iran nuclear agreement, giving the White House the final vote needed to protect the accord from a Republican-led effort to defeat the measure,” writes NPR’s Brakkton Booker.

With her endorsement, Mikulski became the crucial 34th vote needed to sustain President Obama’s expected veto should Congress pass a measure to block the agreement.

“Ever since the U.S. and its partners finalized the nuclear deal with Iran in July, Secretary of State John Kerry has tried to downplay what diplomats call the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” reports NPR’s Michele Kellemen.

“We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did,” Kerry said this summer. “We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward.”

Even supporters of the deal, though, say Kerry was overselling that point. The U.S. believes that Iran experimented with nuclear weapons components in the past. But Iran has stonewalled international inspectors in the past and the U.S. does not have “absolute knowledge,” according to a former Obama administration official, Robert Einhorn.

Today’s Question: Do you think the Iran deal is in the best interest of the U.S.?

  • PaulJ

    Better than no deal at all, and we can still drone on if we find the cheaters cheating.

  • krisbrowne42

    Maybe we can even let this one work instead of skipping right to the invasion part…

    We had in inspection regime with Iraq too, but our administration still managed to manipulate the situation into a war. I fully expect that to be the outcome if anyone from the GOP but Rand Paul (xenophobe) or Trump (unless he can turn a profit on it) is in office.

  • 59willys

    Dream on…. one of the gravest mistakes in the history of our country. It gives Iran almost everything it wants at the cost of nothing. So they can’t build a bomb for 5 to 10 years. You really call that a win? They get to start purchasing arms to supply terrorists legally. They were doing a good job at this before. They’re already talking to Russian and China about delivery systems…. Geez what are we thinking? What exactly have we gained here?

    • Dave M

      Iran scaremongers haven’t been right about anything since pretty much…well, ever.

  • Robert

    It’s the best that we were going to get especially with Russia at the table. Far from perfect but better than nothing. By the way Pakistan is going to add 20-40 nuclear warheads in the next 20 years and will become the 3rd most powerful nuclear power behind Russian and the US. Odd that we don’t hear as much about this considering Pakistan’s dubious politics. Pakistan has a hostile relationship with India, another nuclear power, plus has a history of helping other regimes with nuclear technology.

  • Gary F

    I hope Jewish donors finally realize that the Democratic party is anti-Israel.

  • Sue de Nim

    In diplomacy you never get what’s in your “best interests.” What you get, if you negotiate well, is the best achievable deal under the circumstances. I think that’s what we’ve got here. Kerry (who really negotiated it, not Obama) had to consider not only what Iran would agree to, but also the other parties to the negotiations. Another factor is the 1953 CIA overthrow of Mosaddegh in favor of the Shah, which still colors our relationship with Iran and makes it harder for them to trust us. The Iraq invasion also leads them to question our trustworthiness. Although you’d think Iran would be grateful that we got rid of Saddam Hussein and made it a lot easier for them to wield influence in the region (thanks, George!), it set the precedent that we might invade even if an inspections regime is in place and working. Given the history and international dynamics, I can’t see how Kerry could have done any better, and it’s certainly less bad than no deal at all. Worst case now would be if Congress scuttles the deal, which would tell the world that there’s no point in negotiating with the US at all.

    • Martha

      Sue, I recall it was Obama who failed to negotiate leaving a peace keeping force in Iraq because he stated he had no desire to do otherwise. Every military general and analyst warned him that his action would effect the terrorist group to come right in and seize land. Today Iraq and Syria are mostly occupied by the beheading anti-Christian evil Jihadists scum, radical Islamists.
      Obama was wrong to surrender and leave Iraq on their own too early and he knows it. Oama calls his acts as “ending a war” when all he did was run away… the war didn’t end and since then, over 200,000 have been slaughtered, many were just little children.
      proof: ISIL is huge and growing and Obama, today still can’t address the nation and say he has a real plan to defeat ISIL_ because he has no plan. He can’t even say the words Radical Islam. Why do you think so many top ranked generals have resigned under his time in office?

      • Sue de Nim

        I don’t see what that has to do with this deal with Iran, but you’re factually incorrect. Obama was willing to leave some troops in Iraq, not as an occupying force but in an invited status, if the (elected!) Iraqi government sign on to a status of forces agreement acceptable to our military leaders. They were not, so all the troops were pulled out. Some folks were saying we should keep the troops there anyway and just not let the Iraqis exercise any jurisdiction over them, but that would have been a continuation of the occupation, which the American people were not going to tolerate (and rightly so).

  • Pearly

    Looks like we are going to find out

  • Mark in Ohio

    It seems that this will do a better job of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons than anything else has so far. If this had been negotiated solely by the US, I would be more suspicious. Since this agreement is the result of an international coalition, I feel that it has more credibility. It also means that we need to support it if we want to be seen as relevant in international politics. We have enough trouble getting other countries to go along with us. If we don’t accept this treaty that we helped negotiate, then we will have even more trouble in the future getting anyone to agree to help us negotiate a treaty. We have to remember that this is a negotiation, not the US dictating the answer. If we don’t agree with this, the rest of the parties involved will still be implementing it, so the sanctions are mostly going away whether we want them to or not. It will leave us in a much weaker position should Iran try to violate the terms of the agreement.

    • Martha

      Mark, The other countries supporting the Iran deal admitted they need the commerce with Iran..its all about their money needs, not the security of the world. Saudi and Israel are against the stupid one sided deal. Iran has funded terrorism , killed thousands of our Americans, well before the ’80s but most seem to forget that bit of history. Carter will never forget how weak he acted. Clinton admitted on CNN years a go that he was “less than aggressive enough” to deal with Iran as well as with Al Queda when the Saudi’s first offered Bin Laden to us. He refused..amazing? Nope, not for a progressive it isn’t. Why are all progressive politicians so weak on foreign policy and protecting America? The progressive men can’t carry their tiny tiny balls in their purses for ever, can they?

  • KTN

    No. I’m pretty sure the President, and now his veto proof majority put Iran first, and the U.S. second. Of course Faux news thinks that, but those folks have never been accused of thinking very deeply about much – except the million things that fuel their outrage.

    This is a good deal, for both countries. All my Iranian friends support it, and knowing that the citizenry (and government) of Iran are not suicidal, takes away the argument that we gave it away.

    I know compromise is a dirty word for some, but in the real world, that’s how things get done.

    Good for the Pres on this one.

  • lindblomeagles

    To answer this question, we have to observe the landscape at hand. 1) Pakistan is now the third largest producer of nuclear weapons. 2) Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are far from being stable countries. 3) As in the case of Yemen, Saudi Arabia is just as active in the region as Iran is. 4) It’s a good bet Iran ALREADY HAS nuclear capability because George W. Bush spent most of his time, and our nation’s time, IN THE WRONG COUNTRIES (Iraq and Afghanistan). Those WMD’s that were supposed to be in Iraq and never materialized appear to have actually been in Iran. 5) President Obama is approaching his final year in Office with an eye towards his legacy and probably won’t screw that up by entering into a bad deal. With these 5 scenarios in play, I’m going to side with the President here and hope for the best.

  • Hunter

    wow, every Progressive will blindly support Obama even in the worst deal I have seen in 45 years. Iran gets billions, they also get access to Russia’s air defense system and conventional weapons with ballistic capacity in the near future. Everyone should recall, Obama said in 2008, ” our promise is to keep Iran from nuclear potential, to end their nuclear enrichment, to sanction for their terrorist funding.”
    Well, everyone of those plans went quietly by the wayside. Nuclear enrichment is only needed for weaponizing, nuke energy production does not need enrichment facilities; e.g UK, France, Canada all have nuke energy and no enrichment. We are being played by our two nutless wonders in office.
    The only reason most of us hope the agreement is signed ( and it is not a treaty because that would require Congressional approval which Obama would never get) is to ensure the Democrat machine loses big in 2016 election. Polls show over 74% of all Americans , regardless of party, believe the country is still going in the wrong direction. Enough said.

    • Yanotha Twangai

      Wow, you stayed on topic this time! But you’re still wrong. It’s not “progressives” who are blindly supporting Obama (after all, Kerry and representatives of several other nations negotiated the deal, not Obama), but conservatives who are blindly opposing him.

      • Hunter

        At least I read the agreement that was posted by the gov. You simply have no idea..One only has to look at North Korea, same stupid deal that was unenforced by a Democrat president. Obama is doing this to preserve his useless legacy, to account for the false Peace prize they handed him after doing nothing in 2009.

        • David P.

          North Korea suspended their development of a nuclear weapon in the 80’s in exchange for the removal of US nukes in South Korea, fuel and food. Though never very cooperative with international inspectors, the agreement, however shaky, held until 2002 when President Bush suspended fuel shipments and NK joined the nuclear club. Say what you will, the fact is NK went nuclear on President Bush’s watch.

  • Gary F

    Again! Democrats voting yes on something they haven’t read!

    • David P.

      What would you suggest as a workable solution?

      • Pearly

        Doesn’t matter what we think, to the elected

        • David P.

          That may or may not be the case (probably depends on your $$$). My point is a complaint without a suggested solution has no weight. If the complainer hasn’t any other ideas, then they are conceding that the original idea is still the best idea, and the complainer is just that, a complainer.

          • Pearly

            Doesn’t matter what you think dave…. It’s dun… Or me for that mater

      • Gary F

        Continue with the sanctions, continue the plan. With the sanctions and the low price of oil, Iran’s merchant and student class, was close to revolution and the ruling government out of money. And the President failed to acknowledge the student uprisings years ago, bad mistake.

        This is a bad deal. It makes the US and the rest of the world NO safer than the previous status quo.

        David, with more natural gas and oil than they know what to do with, why do they need nuclear reactors?

        • David P.

          I agree that sanctions should be Plan A. But sanctions only work if enough countries are on board to make them work. With Russia, China and the European Union lifting sanctions, the US would be virtually alone – it would no longer be sanctions, it would be a boycott. At least this deal gives the US some access and the ability to put some pressure on Iran to comply.
          Yes, Iran is awash in oil and gas. They want to export it. If oil is $50 a barrel, and they can bring a barrel to market for $5, they will make a lot of money. If it costs Russia $75 a barrel to bring oil to market, buying oil for $50 from Iran seems like a good deal to Putin. Who is also very interested in seeing that Iran does not develop a nuke.

          • Gary F

            Think they’ll use all that new money for good?

          • David P.

            Does any country use all their $ for “good”?
            Iran is going to have a market for their oil and gas, and lots of money to spend, with or without this deal.
            If the US walks away from the deal, then we lose any ability to influence how Iran spends their money. We also send a message to our allies and adversaries that a negotiated agreement/deal/treaty isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
            Deal or no deal.
            Influence Iran or not.
            Be a partner in a coalition that is on Iran’s case or not.
            Be worth or word with the world community or not.

  • kevins

    To the question, yes. And I haven’t read it.

    • Pearly

      Case closed. Filed under did not read 🙂
      I just noticed our avatar pics are very similar. Another 🙂

  • boygeezer

    It’s always interesting to me how the countries that have nukes assume the moral superiority to tell countries who want nukes that they don’t get to have any. More interesting still when nuke countries who’ve actually used them not just once but twice against civilian populations of other countries assume this moral superiority. At any rate, the world is awash in nukes, so if Iran ends up not joining the nuclear club (did I mention Israel?) for awhile, I’m OK. with that.

    • Martha

      Boygeezer, by your post name might suggests you have Alzheimer issues?
      Seriously though, Iran continues to threaten with their call to wipe out Israel. Their religion sees being a martyr as a good thing and death as just a Just cause for them to get to heaven. Christianity is about life but Islam is about glorifying death in the name of Mohamed. You stil want Iran to have Nukes when their leaders are sick twisted radical traditional Islamists hell bent on a world caliphate at all costs? How is that different from the Nazis? Well, at least Hitler thought he could find refuge somewhere and live out his pathetic life if he lost the war. Islamist leaders do not share that desire for long life.

      • Yanotha Twangai

        You know nothing about Islam. My Christian faith teaches me that it’s important to try to understand those one disagrees with, not to demonize them. Those terrorists are violating the teachings of their own religion. Moreover, it’s mainly Sunnis who think a caliphate is a good idea, but the Iranis are mostly Shiite. The so-called Islamic State is an Iran’s enemy as much as it is ours.

  • Polaris 550

    Not really, as all it did was kick the can down the road. Those on the Iranian side that signed the aggreement, did the hand shaking, are not the people who the buck stops with. Their supreme spirtual leader does. If He wants to build a bomb and skirt the inspections, He can. If any of the people that signed the deal stand up to him they and their families will be shot.

  • Pearly

    Interesting read from the PBS Ombudsman.

  • BillW

    I think its significant that the folks with the strongest credentials, and that would appear to be least likely to have a political agenda, all seem to be in favor of the deal:

    70 non-proliferation experts support the deal

    29 nuclear scientists support the deal

  • a_tribe_called_chris

    Deal or no deal. With the deal we have something otherwise nothing. Take it.

  • Martha P.

    Trump, Carson and Fiorini would never have let radical Kerry do a deal with no teeth in it. Recent polls show 80% are against such a stupid deal.

    • Yanotha Twangai

      Of course, that many lemmings can’t all be wrong, can they?

    • David P.

      What would you suggest?

  • Rich in Duluth

    Yes. The agreement limits Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon without the U.S. or it’s allies having to go to war to stop this development. Without this agreement, despite the sanctions, Iran would be building a nuclear weapon and be arming missiles with them. The treaty is a good thing for the U.S. and the world.

    • Martha

      Rich missing the facts a bit: The day after Iran’s leaders signed , they were chanting before thousands, “death to America” Then yesterday they announced ( Sept 6th. ) ” we will not abide by the UN or anyone telling us what weapons we can buy or build and we will.”
      Most MPR listeners do not know that Obama had secret negotiations for 18 months prior, unknown to Congress. Obama set it as an “agreement” instead of the required Treaty status for nuclear arms in order to by pass the 2/3 Senate approval as required by law. The Repubs gave in and allowed a 1/3 Senate vote change. They should be run out of office. Also unknown to many apparently, is that Obama loosened sanctions last year and allowed hundreds of millions to flow to Iran as a gesture to bring them to the table! Death to America Iran wack jobs should not be mollycoddled. Just recall Obama’s speeches at the UN where he denigrated Christianity and sang the praises of Islam..sickening and unheard of for the President’s office of the USA.
      Obama is so similar to Neville Chamberlain in the ’40’s that it is enough to make one hurl. No wonder Trump is getting Dems to support him.

      • Rich in Duluth


        It doesn’t matter what people chant, it doesn’t matter what “secret” negotiations you think the President had, it doesn’t matter that the “agreement” isn’t called a treaty, or that you think the President is a Muslim. What matters is whether Iran makes a nuclear weapon or not. We now have an agreement with them, with verification. If they abide by the agreement that’s good for us and the world. If they don’t, we can reinstate sanctions and ultimately have the military option.

  • Zac

    Sanctions brought Iran to the table and then Obama released much of those sanctions and couldn’t convince Germany and France to abide either. Increase sanctions first is the norm as history shows, then release hostages and then have instant inspections with shutting down and dismantling their multiple un needed centerfuges. None of those actions were on the table because our Progressive leaders are such little wimps with no idea of the threat they are adding. Israel is 100% against such a sissy deal_ that alone should say enough.
    Or better said, the deal President Obama negotiated with Iran is an outrage. President Obama will be emboldened to conduct foreign policy by sidelining Congress.

    The deal is bad, plain and simple. The United States has a tight embargo on Iran that restrains it from spreading even more terror and violence throughout the region. Shamefully, President Obama didn’t even get the release of the 4 American hostages as part of his deal with Tehran. He couldn’t get Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist or for Iran to stop calling for the elimination of Israel. Iran gets to keep spreading destruction and calling for a second Holocaust with impunity.

    The Obama Administration’s only argument is that this deal is a choice is between this agreement and war. That is FALSE. The choice is a plan that weakens the security of the United States and Israel, or a strong foreign policy that promotes our interests helps our allies, and supports freedom.

    President Ronald Reagan taught us the importance of trusting but verifying. President Obama ignores this lesson with an incredibly weak inspections program, delayed or even self-inspections. Not only that, President Obama has negotiated side deals with Iran that Congress won’t even be able to review. Congress can’t approve this Iran deal that can’t effectively be verified and that Congress can’t fully vet before voting on it.

    Iranian terrorists have been killing our men and women in uniform for the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet President Obama thinks they are trustworthy. He has done nothing but embolden our enemies and spit in the face of our allies. Congress must assert its authority and stand up for a better deal with Iran by rejecting this one.

    We are seeing a huge exodus of citizens from Iraq and Syria, the likes we have not seen since Nazi Germany. ISIL grows, hundreds of thousands are being slaughtered, Christians are being wiped out in those countries and the great USA is now neutered, thanks to an inexperienced never employed grassroots organizer turned president. Of course the Iran deal should be scrapped.

  • Gary F

    Sure sounds like Iran is looking to be a peaceful nation, huh?

  • whitedoggie44

    Well appears he received 41 votes from democratic senators and last I read, he had a 41% approval rating. As the great president Ronald Reagan stated, “trust but verify” perhaps in future years, if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, it will seal obamaks

  • whitedoggie44

    It will seal obama’s legacy as the worst president in at least the past 100 years-

    • Yanotha Twangai

      I don’t know how he could possibly be worse than his immediate predecessor.

      • David P.

        Or Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Papa Bush.

  • Brian Donovan

    Without it, Iran build nuke bombs.

    Get it?

    Did calling NK the axis of evil stop them from building nukes? nope.