Congressman George Holding: Two sides to every argument

President Obama supports the agreement with Iran.  He argues it means:

1. Iran will reduce the number of centrifuges it has (to enrich uranium) from 19,000 to 6,104. And Iran’s heavy water reactor will only be used to produce low grade plutonium, so that it cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon.
2. There will be inspections.
3. And, even if Iran breaks its word, it will require a year to build a nuclear weapon. So there will be time to stop them.

Opponents of the agreement disagree and point out:

1. Iran claims it only wants to build a nuclear power plant. But it doesn’t need centrifuges or a heavy water reactor to do that. So, both should be dismantled.
2. Iran’s not destroying centrifuges; it’s simply disconnecting them and could reconnect them whenever it wants.
3. The plan for inspections is unclear and unreliable.
4. And when the agreement ends, Iran will be free to build nuclear weapons.

Eighteen months ago, when we began negotiations, our goal was to dismantle Iran’s centrifuges and its heavy water reactor – so Iran could not build nuclear weapons.

Somehow, a year and a half later, we’ve ended up with an agreement that all but locks into place their path to nuclear weapons.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress, he pointed out that, today, terrorists like ISIS are armed with rifles and mortars. But Iran is on the road to building a nuclear weapon. Then he said the greatest “danger facing the world today is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

I agree. This is a bad deal.  A nuclear Iran is too great a risk to take.