initially written for Senator's Wyden & Merkley and Representative Defazio. Sent July 24.
Dear Senator Wyden,
Thank you for your time. Is our deal with Iran a good deal? I urge you to consider the facts. Iran is a State sponsor of terrorism. Not only do they support Hezbollah, but they have also provided insurgents in Iraq with weapons against our armed forces. Iran has Army day parades that shout “death to America” and “death to Israel”. Even after penning the deal with America, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei returned to Iran vowing to maintain current State policy against the United States. He also vowed to oppose American Policies in the region. After these speeches the crowds proceed to chant their death mantra.
President John F Kennedy said, “'We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.” Iran is not sacrificing anything of significant value if it is not willing to release the four US citizens detained and tortured in their prisons. It is not sacrificing its ideologies of destroying us or our allies.
The thought of Iran having a Nuclear weapon not being a big deal is a fallacy. Iran can pass of nuclear material for a ‘dirty’ bomb or simply have another plausibly deniable excuse for employing the weapon. Even if we could adequately track all nuclear material movements, we would be playing a very dangerous game. This is not to say that Iran does not have sovereign rights, but those rights come with responsibilities. Responsibilities of which do not indicate any value on American life.
The question is do we trust a nation that thinks we are evil? Do we think the first olive branch to that nation should be nuclear? In their eyes we are the enemy and to our former administration they were the axis of evil. If peace is to be possible they must sacrifice their hate for us and their active work to see us, and Israel, destroyed.
I am concerned for the safety of my family. I am concerned for our military personnel in the region. I am concerned overall for America and its well-being. I am concerned for our ally Israel. I implore you not to sign any deal that is not equally met by Iran, and that does not ensure safety for our nation.
President John F Kennedy said, “'We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.” Iran is not sacrificing anything of significant value if it is not willing to release the four US citizens detained and tortured in their prisons. It is not sacrificing its ideologies of destroying us or our allies.
The thought of Iran having a Nuclear weapon not being a big deal is a fallacy. Iran can pass of nuclear material for a ‘dirty’ bomb or simply have another plausibly deniable excuse for employing the weapon. Even if we could adequately track all nuclear material movements, we would be playing a very dangerous game. This is not to say that Iran does not have sovereign rights, but those rights come with responsibilities. Responsibilities of which do not indicate any value on American life.
The question is do we trust a nation that thinks we are evil? Do we think the first olive branch to that nation should be nuclear? In their eyes we are the enemy and to our former administration they were the axis of evil. If peace is to be possible they must sacrifice their hate for us and their active work to see us, and Israel, destroyed.
I am concerned for the safety of my family. I am concerned for our military personnel in the region. I am concerned overall for America and its well-being. I am concerned for our ally Israel. I implore you not to sign any deal that is not equally met by Iran, and that does not ensure safety for our nation.
Sincerely,
Skyeler Lewkowicz
Skyeler Lewkowicz
First response (winner in expediency). July 30.
Dear Skyeler,
Thank you for contacting me about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal negotiated with Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.
The United States, along with the group of international partners known as the P5+1 (the United States, Germany, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) struck a final nuclear deal with Iran on July 14, 2015, resulting in the agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Iran deal is the culmination of nearly two years of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Under the terms of the deal, Iran agrees to adhere to a variety of limitations and inspections in exchange for relief from the crippling economic sanctions.
I have strongly advocated both for sanctions initially and for space to allow the diplomatic process to play out. Now that a deal has been realized, I am carefully reviewing the terms and asking a series of detailed questions to fully understand how it will work and what the alternatives may be.
As you may know, Congress has 60 days to review JCPOA and vote on the deal. Please know that I will evaluate the strength of this agreement by a simple standard: whether the U.S. and our allies, like Israel, will be made safer with the implementation of this agreement or not.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts regarding Iran. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as circumstances develop.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
Dear Skyeler,
Thank you for contacting me about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal negotiated with Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.
The United States, along with the group of international partners known as the P5+1 (the United States, Germany, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) struck a final nuclear deal with Iran on July 14, 2015, resulting in the agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Iran deal is the culmination of nearly two years of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Under the terms of the deal, Iran agrees to adhere to a variety of limitations and inspections in exchange for relief from the crippling economic sanctions.
I have strongly advocated both for sanctions initially and for space to allow the diplomatic process to play out. Now that a deal has been realized, I am carefully reviewing the terms and asking a series of detailed questions to fully understand how it will work and what the alternatives may be.
As you may know, Congress has 60 days to review JCPOA and vote on the deal. Please know that I will evaluate the strength of this agreement by a simple standard: whether the U.S. and our allies, like Israel, will be made safer with the implementation of this agreement or not.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts regarding Iran. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as circumstances develop.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
August 6
Dear Mr. Lewkowicz:
Thank you for your message in opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. I appreciate hearing from you on this important topic.
After years of negotiations, the U.S., Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia, and China (otherwise known as the P5+1) have reached an agreement with Iran over their activities in pursuit of developing a nuclear weapon. This agreement referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced in July and Congress will have sixty days to review the agreement before voting on a resolution in September.
I share your concerns about Iran which is why I have voted numerous times in favor of legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. However, I believe the agreement that was reached represents significant progress and it is in the best interest of the United States, Israel, and our allies for Congress to support it.
Under this deal Iran would be required to halt their uranium enrichment program, cease their plutonium production, and eliminate their stockpile of highly enriched uranium. They will be required to fill the core of the heavy water Arak reactor with concrete, remove two thirds of installed centrifuges, as well as remove all the pipework and infrastructure that connects the centrifuges that enrich uranium. Experts say that these steps are not easily reversible and it would take Iran well over two years to rebuild that infrastructure and any efforts to rebuild it would be detected within a few days.
Additionally, Iran must permit 24/7 access by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to all their current production facilities and grant access when requested to any suspected covert facility. The inspection regime will enhance transparency on Iran's nuclear activities and sanctions will not be released until there is verification that Iran is complying with all aspects of the agreement. If Iran were to violate the terms of the agreement sanctions will quickly be snapped back in place.
Military experts agree that the best option to pursue is to increase the breakout time for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon which is what this agreement will do. There is no better alternative. A preemptive military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East that many experts and I believe would prove more disastrous than the Iraq war. Even worse, such a strike would likely compel Iran to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, eject international inspectors, and rapidly pursue a nuclear deterrent. There is wide consensus among experts that a strike would only set their program back a few years.
Additionally, the crippling sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table were successful because they were multilateral sanctions imposed by the international community under the leadership of the U.S. Unilateral sanctions by the U.S. over the years have had little impact on Iran's behavior. The international coalition was critical to bringing Iran to this point and without this deal it had become increasingly clear that some of our allies were ready to drop their support for the sanctions regime. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted and it is one of the reasons why we need to take seriously the diplomatic resolution that is on the table now.
While I'm sympathetic to those who say we should go back to the negotiating table and get a perfect deal or otherwise have no deal at all, no deal would allow Iran to continue their nuclear activities unchecked. Further, the U.S. and our allies will not lose any options down the road by implementing this deal. If Iran violates this agreement international sanctions or military force can be used.
Lastly, if Congress rejects this deal, it will play into the hands of Iran's hardliners who don't want to see it succeed. We should not provide the Iranian hardliners any opportunity to further radicalize Iran. I'm hopeful that a younger generation of Iranians will reject the leadership of the past and be more open to changing their attitudes towards the U.S. and the rest of the world. This deal has the potential to open a dialogue that could help resolve other issues with Iran.
Although we disagree on this matter, I appreciate you taking the time to write in and having the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I will continue to support policies and legislation that deter the Iranian regime from pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER DeFAZIO
Fourth Congressional District, Oregon
Dear Mr. Lewkowicz:
Thank you for your message in opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. I appreciate hearing from you on this important topic.
After years of negotiations, the U.S., Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia, and China (otherwise known as the P5+1) have reached an agreement with Iran over their activities in pursuit of developing a nuclear weapon. This agreement referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced in July and Congress will have sixty days to review the agreement before voting on a resolution in September.
I share your concerns about Iran which is why I have voted numerous times in favor of legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. However, I believe the agreement that was reached represents significant progress and it is in the best interest of the United States, Israel, and our allies for Congress to support it.
Under this deal Iran would be required to halt their uranium enrichment program, cease their plutonium production, and eliminate their stockpile of highly enriched uranium. They will be required to fill the core of the heavy water Arak reactor with concrete, remove two thirds of installed centrifuges, as well as remove all the pipework and infrastructure that connects the centrifuges that enrich uranium. Experts say that these steps are not easily reversible and it would take Iran well over two years to rebuild that infrastructure and any efforts to rebuild it would be detected within a few days.
Additionally, Iran must permit 24/7 access by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to all their current production facilities and grant access when requested to any suspected covert facility. The inspection regime will enhance transparency on Iran's nuclear activities and sanctions will not be released until there is verification that Iran is complying with all aspects of the agreement. If Iran were to violate the terms of the agreement sanctions will quickly be snapped back in place.
Military experts agree that the best option to pursue is to increase the breakout time for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon which is what this agreement will do. There is no better alternative. A preemptive military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East that many experts and I believe would prove more disastrous than the Iraq war. Even worse, such a strike would likely compel Iran to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, eject international inspectors, and rapidly pursue a nuclear deterrent. There is wide consensus among experts that a strike would only set their program back a few years.
Additionally, the crippling sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table were successful because they were multilateral sanctions imposed by the international community under the leadership of the U.S. Unilateral sanctions by the U.S. over the years have had little impact on Iran's behavior. The international coalition was critical to bringing Iran to this point and without this deal it had become increasingly clear that some of our allies were ready to drop their support for the sanctions regime. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted and it is one of the reasons why we need to take seriously the diplomatic resolution that is on the table now.
While I'm sympathetic to those who say we should go back to the negotiating table and get a perfect deal or otherwise have no deal at all, no deal would allow Iran to continue their nuclear activities unchecked. Further, the U.S. and our allies will not lose any options down the road by implementing this deal. If Iran violates this agreement international sanctions or military force can be used.
Lastly, if Congress rejects this deal, it will play into the hands of Iran's hardliners who don't want to see it succeed. We should not provide the Iranian hardliners any opportunity to further radicalize Iran. I'm hopeful that a younger generation of Iranians will reject the leadership of the past and be more open to changing their attitudes towards the U.S. and the rest of the world. This deal has the potential to open a dialogue that could help resolve other issues with Iran.
Although we disagree on this matter, I appreciate you taking the time to write in and having the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I will continue to support policies and legislation that deter the Iranian regime from pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER DeFAZIO
Fourth Congressional District, Oregon
Senator Wyden. August 24th.
No comments:
Post a Comment