Role of Iran’s Nuclear Agreement in 2016 Presidential Election (Foreign Policy)

Vote128

As the 2016 election draws closer, presidential hopefuls are beginning to stake their opinions about the current U.S. administration. GOP and Democratic contenders alike have found an opportunity to “shake their foreign-policy tail feathers” with regard to the foreign policy negotiations between Iran and the U.N. Security Council in which Iran will begin disarming its nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. providing over $6 million in relief from economic sanctions. As a few GOP candidates hope to bash the foreign policy as a means to occupy airspace and media coverage, other potential candidates are weighing the public response to the negotiation and debating whether or not Iran is worthy of electoral debate. Read more about the foreign policy stances of potential 2016 presidential candidates.

Comments

  1. Eric Weis '73 says:

    Nuclear non-proliferation ought to be at the top of any foreign policy debate. It was the most important foreign policy issue cited by Al Gore 14 years ago, and the fundamentals have not changed. These weapons remain the only true WMDs. Just the use of a few (heaven forbid) could bring civilization crashing down. Some scientists have predicted the onset of nuclear winter from just a “small” thermonuclear exchange. This issue has been with us since Hiroshima, but it’s complicated by the fact that Eisenhower’s “Atoms For Peace” are an integral part of our civilization. Oppose weapons and limit their spread. But let’s not throw nuclear technology away. Iran is only one small piece of the puzzle. The world must come to terms with the atomic genie, with common policy for superpowers and developing nations alike. Full disclosure – my professional career was in nuclear medicine for 40 years.

Leave a Comment

*