Analysis: Nuclear agreement risks projecting US weakness

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 10, 2015 10:26 a.m.

    Note how GaryO is of the opinion that Iran should have nukes to deal with Israel.... Why he thinks that a nation that denies the holocaust and wants to kill every Jew they can should have Nukes is a question best left to the reader to interpret.

  • HBZion Salt Lake City, UT
    April 6, 2015 10:17 p.m.

    We can use military force at any time. We are working toward a peaceful solution. This is good. The Israeli lobby should stop interfering with United States foreign policy. America First!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 6, 2015 4:35 p.m.

    Craig Clark

    you REALLY think a group that condones and encourages suicide attacks would flinch at their own destruction if they could destroy Israel? the mullahs mist likely have some means of self-preservation from an early warning system. They will use others to accomplish their desires.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 6, 2015 2:12 p.m.

    Thid Barker,

    Forget the vitriolic nonsense we hear from Iranian demagogues, Netanyahu, or right wing commentators on U.S. radio and television. If Iran were to attack Israel, it would leave Israel no choice but to use its nuclear arsenal to obliterate Iran in a single day. Iran’s governing Ayatollahs know that and they’re not that stupid.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 6, 2015 1:16 p.m.

    @ Craig: Bad guess since Iran has already said the destruction of Israel is "Non-negotiable". Then guess who is next on their list? And guess what they will need to accomplish both? If you said nukes, you would be correct! Projecting weakness only emboldens them!

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    April 6, 2015 1:02 p.m.

    Hey, Dan Perry, I'm an old guy, but I would surely like to go back to the days when reporters reported the news instead of commentators insisting on presenting to the public their personal bias as though it were verifiable truth.

    Not many things I resent as much as having some self-appointed newspaper person tell me what to believe.

    Don't tell me what to believe; just report the news and let me as your reader form my own opinion.

    The news media have become as outrageous as what we used to accuse the press in the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc.

    No wonder the newspaper industry suffers from a lack of credibility with the public that exceeds what it has ever been before.

    Even the old "yellow journalism" of the past was no worse than the media's news reporting we're exposed to today!

    Besides all that, American journalists are probably the worst ever in history as to their writing skills.

    It's as though English courses were never, let alone learned when they pursued their journalism degrees.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 6, 2015 12:29 p.m.

    "....Why do you think Iran wants nukes?"
    ______________________________

    The most obvious reason is to make Israel and other potential regional adversaries afraid to attack them.

    Projecting U.S. weakness is never an issue when U.S. forces are sent into combat. Negotiations to find long term resolution to problems takes no less fortitude but requires more patience and hard work.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 6, 2015 12:15 p.m.

    Tolstoy
    What projects weakness is when one branch of the government (executive) ignores another branch of government (congress) in direct violation of the Constitution.

    GaryObama
    BO’s “harsh sanctions on Russia” are doing NOTHING to influence Putin’s behavior, other than having Putin threaten to withhold oil and gas exports to our European “allies”.

    louie,
    how do you know the republicans do not agree? The constitution requires senate consent for any treaties – but we know liberals do not care about the constitution.

    I do not know enough about the treaty to say whether it is good or bad. I DO know (from a prior DN article) that the FRENCH did not think it went far enough in restricting Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. Based on that, my pre-conception is the deal is not as good as it should be. But then when a swift-boat captain with a dubious military record is your head negotiator, we should not expect too much.

    LOU,
    I have no objections to allowing the Israelis to send over a few planes to take out Iran’s nuke sites. I suspect BO has told them WE will shoot them down if they try.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 6, 2015 11:35 a.m.

    we just now hear the Saudis' are in agreement with the progress and terms of the Deal. All the major countries in the world are for this agreement except Netanyahu and the republicans. We know how smart they are or have we forgotten about Iraq.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 6, 2015 11:24 a.m.

    War? Why do you think Iran wants nukes? DUH!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 6, 2015 11:01 a.m.

    @Thid Barker; Do you have an extra child you care to sacrifice for another war or two?

    Why is it always those who gave the least cry the loudest.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 6, 2015 9:50 a.m.

    America is weaker and our enemies are stronger! DUH!

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 6, 2015 9:48 a.m.

    If...

    If only a re-Publican had made this same deal, it would be perfect to all people, at all times, in all places, everywhere.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 6, 2015 9:40 a.m.

    GWB was worried about America appearing weak and ended up showing the world our ignorant, stubborn, and callous style. An agreement with our allies is better than none at all. If we choose to go alone our actions will be not be nearly as effective as they would be if we act in unison with our allies.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 6, 2015 8:53 a.m.

    I have to say that most of the comments on this piece appropriately point out what ludicrous nonsense this article is. This can't be said strongly enough. Add to this the fact that this is not a U.S. negotiation, but an international one.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 6, 2015 8:33 a.m.

    The GOP's solution to everything is military engagement, whether it makes strategic sense or not. There's a pathetic admiration for any macho bluster -- which is why so many Republicans are in love with folks like Putin and Netanyahu. Common sense goes out the window when you have a big man crush.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    April 6, 2015 6:38 a.m.

    @ toosmartforyou

    Give me a break! Putin's nation is falling apart over sanctions and falling oil prices... are you saying we should have sent in the troops? Please, America is so sick of GOP wars abroad. We need to be more wise about use of our military and be less trigger happy from the "good ol' Bush-Cheney days."

    The reality is if Obama gets a treaty in place with Iran -- it will be another "win" for him, and the GOP hates it when Obama wins and puts the GOP (again) on the wrong side of history.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 6, 2015 6:23 a.m.

    Heytoosmartforyou -

    "Why is everyone worried about the US being perceived as being "weak?" I mean, look at how Obama stood up to Putin in the Ukraine....."

    Exatly. Obama, the community organizer, organized the international community to impose harsh sanctions on Russia.

    And Russians are suffering. But the Russians are predominantly nationalists now. All thoughts of international cooperation evaporated with the Communist era. And Russians still overwhelmingly support Putin.

    I guess you must be saying that we should have been men about it and just nuked them all, right?

    Of course, that would have brought about WW III, and aside from the crews in nuclear subs submerged deep in the world's oceans, there probably wouldn't be much left of humanity right now.

    But it would be worth it, right?

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 6, 2015 2:36 a.m.

    "If you push me towards something that you think is a weakness, then I will turn that perceived weakness into a strength."

    "Fear the soft spoken man."

    "Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time."

    "The weakest of character cry foul. The strongest of character move forward."

    "You are strongest when other think you are at your weakest point."

    "He hung from a cross dying, he changed the world."

    A few quotes, some barrowed some original, to help those of little faith.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 5, 2015 11:14 p.m.

    Why is everyone worried about the US being perceived as being "weak?" I mean, look at how Obama stood up to Putin in the Ukraine.....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2015 10:59 p.m.

    Except nothing would project weakness quite like sabotaging our own deal.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 5, 2015 10:11 p.m.

    What projects weakness is when one branch of the goverrnment (congress) actively works to undermine another branch of government in the middle of a delicate and possibly very volitial negotiation.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 5, 2015 9:34 p.m.

    The premise of this column appears to be that America is omnipotent, we should be a very forceful agent for good throughout the world.

    Reading the reactions to this preliminary agreement with Iran on a reliably right wing website, a common theme seems to be the US should just nuke Iran, or let Israel nuke Iran. Presumably we should have nuked Putin over the Ukraine issue, and nuked Syria, and while we're getting our return on our investment from the Manhattan Project, maybe we should nuke ISIS, too?

    Are people really this delusional about what we should do?

    Maybe Obama should just announce an agreement with Superman to solve the world's problems, then when it doesn't happen, conservatives can blame Hollywood.

  • ThornBirds St.George, UT
    April 5, 2015 6:18 p.m.

    Are we in ancient Rome, or modern America?
    Yeah! Let's go to war, kill people, destroy the land,
    collect more slaves, assault and steal more women! Yeah!
    Haven't we evolved to the point where we can use our brains and intellect in dealing with people who will never be able to get along?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 5, 2015 4:36 p.m.

    “But if, as critics contend, the agreement ends up projecting U.S. weakness instead, that could embolden rogue states and extremists alike . . .”

    That’s just idiotic.

    So we supposed to be worrying about foreign nationals mistaking sanity for weakness? . . . Well let them.
    People can think what they want, can’t they?

    Our greatest weakness was demonstrated very well by the GW Bush administration. Our inclination to resort to military might without thinking is our greatest weakness.

    We HAVE the big stick, but we forgot how to walk softly.

    NONE of our goals were met by the idiocy of the GW Bush administration and the war hawks who insisted we attack a nation for NO good reason, and embroil ourselves in a hell of our own making.

    The Islamic State would NOT exist if it were not for our show of power in the Middle East. And still, there are nonsensical articles polluting the web.

    Who really respects a vicious bully?

    Hitler’s Germany was quite formidable, wasn’t it? They were not about to show any weakness . . . Until the world turned against them, pulverized them, and killed millions of their civilians.

    Let's learn from history.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 5, 2015 3:09 p.m.

    This article is nonsense.

    Without an agreement, Iran will continue to build toward a bomb no matter what sanctions we put on them. North Korea did it even while their people starved.

    With this agreement, Iran promises to cut its capabilities to the point they cannot produce a bomb. And Iran is the most inspected country in the world. We will know if they fudge.

    This writer is simply trying to question America's "manhood." Real men resist this kind of taunt.