On Sept. 8, Senate Democrats agreed to provide the necessary votes to bar the Senate from passing an act that would disapprove of the Iran nuclear deal. Now, 42 Senate Democrats have announced their disapproval of the measure, making it unlikely that President Obama will be required to use his veto power. If 41 of those Democrats vote for a filibuster, the act will not reach a final vote, according to CNN Politics. However, presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has continued to rally against the deal on Capitol Hill. Others, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have signed onto a letter with 11 other governors, citing opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and advising a continuation of sanctions on the state. Even those on the other side of the line including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) oppose the deal. Do you support the Iran nuclear deal, and do you believe it is important to continue the dialogue on the deal now that it is guaranteed to pass?

Prof. Nader Habibi (ECON)

President Obama's assessment about the effectiveness of the Iran nuclear deal is correct. The agreement rolls back Iran's nuclear program by a substantial amount. It includes strong monitoring mechanisms that make it very difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It also allows Iran to maintain a very limited and minimal nuclear program which offers the Iranian government a face-saving way to accept and implement the agreement. Iran's acceptance of this package is a direct result of the economic and financial sanctions during 2012 to 2015. Avoiding similar sanctions in the future would help incentivize Iran to comply with the nuclear agreement. The fact that the U.S. was able to achieve this agreement without resort to military options is a policy success. Opponents of the agreement have criticized it for the inclusion of expiration dates for specific nuclear restrictions and for failure to address Iran's policies in the Middle East. I agree with the Obama Administration's argument that Iran would not have agreed to any additional restrictions under current level of economic pressures and that the other members of P5+1 negotiation coalition would not have supported the demand for additional concession.

Prof. Nader Habibi (ECON) is the Henry J. Leir Professor of Economics of the Middle East, in the Crown Center, and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics.


Iona Feldman ’17

In negotiating an agreement that restricts Iran’s ability to acquire the uranium or plutonium needed for a nuclear weapon in exchange for soon eventually lifting sanctions, the Obama administration, along with the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, has chosen a diplomatic approach, deescalating tensions that could potentially lead to another Middle Eastern war even more costly and destructive than those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thursday’s vote was a significant defeat for the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which had spent over $20,000,000 on propaganda and on bullying Democratic legislators. For them, pressuring the US into a confrontational approach towards Iran had been a top priority for two decades. While our foreign policy continues to be heavily swayed by a military industrial complex that generally favors imperialist foreign interventions, perhaps this deal might herald a slow march away from the most aggressive neoconservatism of the Bush-Cheney years.

Iona Feldman ’17 is a member of Brandeis Students for Justice in Palestine.


Zachary Silver ’16

If one looks closely at the Iran Nuclear Deal one will find major cloaked untruths. First off, after 8 years, Iran can begin operating centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons. Second, it is able to keep all of its nuclear infrastructure. Third, Iran is required to allow inspections of their nuclear sites at any time. However, this is simply not the case, as Iran can delay these inspections by 24 days, and military inspections are off-limits. So how are the superpowers able to make sure that Iran is abiding by the agreements in the deal? The unfortunate answer is that they cannot. Iran cannot ever be trusted. It is one of the largest supporters of organized terror. Many of its people hold demonstrations to burn Israeli and American flags, chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America". Even a regime-linked website calls for the justification to kill all of the Jews and annihilate Israel, according to a Feb. 8, 2012 Atlantic article. Why would you be in favor of a deal with a terrorist country that seeks your absolute destruction?

Zachary Silver ’16 is majoring in economics and business.


Avi Gold ’16

Even though the Iran Nuclear Deal has already passed, continued discussion on why the deal is not a good one is nevertheless important. Though one can argue about the effectiveness of politicians who are only now dissenting from the deal, it is up to the American public to voice their opinion on whether or not the deal is a good one for the United States and her allies, since the time for governmental debate is nearly finished. It is up to the American people to explain why President Obama's deal seems more focused on his own legacy of having finished a deal rather than avoiding handing a country known to fund terrorist organizations the capacity to make a nuclear bomb and money to possibly further destabilize the Middle East.

Avi Gold ’16 is the Justice's managing editor.