Posted on Aug 12, 2015
Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal. Are They Right In Doing So?
13.9K
146
108
6
6
0
How do you feel about the Generals supporting the Iran Nuclear plan. Do you think they understand the agreement better because they are Generals? My thoughts are, if they can understand the agreement and Obama's plan for the long haul, they're smarter than all of us.
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
National Security
Politics
Iran
Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 35
8
8
0
Shenanigans! I'm not buying it. How can they (or anyone) back a deal that has provisos hidden in other "secret" agreements? Nope, this is not kosher, not kosher at all...
(8)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Agreed, Captain Jack. I don't trust any of the Middle Eastern countries, but especially not Iran.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
The deal to me, based on what has been revealed, is about as smart as releasing 5 terrorists for one deserter.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yes Sir Capt (Join to see), It sounds about as dumb as that deal does. 5 for 1, and no mention of including the 4 they have, in the deal. It would still be a bad deal if they did let the four hostages go, but at least they would be home. I'd like to hear what they would have to say about the deal. I'll bet they know nothing about it, unless they were told to try and turn them against America.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
No these retired flag officers are not correct SGT (Join to see). I wonder how many of them are employed in lobbying the defense industry, DoD and the U.S. Congress. I would expect many of them are.
The letter encourages supporting the agreement thereby "gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary" as opposed to pressuring Iran for what it has already done to advance terror in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to name but a few areas. This reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" statement after the accord he signed the Munich accord with Hitler in September 1938.
The letter encourages supporting the agreement thereby "gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary" as opposed to pressuring Iran for what it has already done to advance terror in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to name but a few areas. This reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" statement after the accord he signed the Munich accord with Hitler in September 1938.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F., They are retired. How can they back this agreement if they weren't in on it? Your explanation makes more sense to me. They're puppets for the administration, agreeing whether they support it or not.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
4
4
0
What is the other option? Are there any other options? The Iranians were going to get the technology one way or the other, so wouldn't it prudent of us and our allies to try to slow it down? What I've seen on the news about this is military action. What do we get in return for deploying again and overthrowing this government since folks want to talk about their ROI? Why do politicians think sending military force is the only way to go when their children aren't going? And is Israel really in any more danger than they were two days ago?
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
"What do we get in return for deploying again and overthrowing this government since folks want to talk about their ROI?" Good question SSG Warren Swan, The only thing I can think of is more KIA's and MIA's.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I agree with most of what these retired flag officers articulate in their letter.
After careful review of the agreement, and after observing the pros and cons, both published and expert testimony at Congressional hearings: I, too, support the Iran agreement. It is the most effective means available today to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I spent most of the latter half of my 30-year Army career focused on nuclear weapons-related issues. Reviewing the list of flag officer signatories, I see names of flag officers who I have both disagreed with and agreed with in the past. I also recognize names of some great Americans who I have reserved the highest respect.
Do they understand the agreement better because they are Generals and Admirals? That is not the correct question. Instead, we should review their expertise, experience, and overall qualifications. Some of those retired flag officers have been directly involved with command and control of United States nuclear forces and capabilities, as well as involved with international diplomacy, agreements, and arms control verification and intelligence activities. Most have expertise in national security strategy development and plans.
For those of us who claim this deal is an Obama administration issue: not so. Most of the broad issues in this agreement were outlined during the Bush administration. In a letter delivered to Iran in July of 2008, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and the European Union, outlined to Iran what they could expect to receive in return for giving up its nuclear weapons program and closely cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to fully comply with the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT).
For those of us who claim this is appeasement: not so. This deal is fully compliant with past UN Security Resolutions and international agreements; and specifically, the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. An important aspect of the NPT: while foregoing the development of nuclear weapons, research for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is permitted, as well as a civilian nuclear power industry.
After careful review of the agreement, and after observing the pros and cons, both published and expert testimony at Congressional hearings: I, too, support the Iran agreement. It is the most effective means available today to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I spent most of the latter half of my 30-year Army career focused on nuclear weapons-related issues. Reviewing the list of flag officer signatories, I see names of flag officers who I have both disagreed with and agreed with in the past. I also recognize names of some great Americans who I have reserved the highest respect.
Do they understand the agreement better because they are Generals and Admirals? That is not the correct question. Instead, we should review their expertise, experience, and overall qualifications. Some of those retired flag officers have been directly involved with command and control of United States nuclear forces and capabilities, as well as involved with international diplomacy, agreements, and arms control verification and intelligence activities. Most have expertise in national security strategy development and plans.
For those of us who claim this deal is an Obama administration issue: not so. Most of the broad issues in this agreement were outlined during the Bush administration. In a letter delivered to Iran in July of 2008, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and the European Union, outlined to Iran what they could expect to receive in return for giving up its nuclear weapons program and closely cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to fully comply with the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT).
For those of us who claim this is appeasement: not so. This deal is fully compliant with past UN Security Resolutions and international agreements; and specifically, the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. An important aspect of the NPT: while foregoing the development of nuclear weapons, research for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is permitted, as well as a civilian nuclear power industry.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Their right, as long as they stand strong and have a viable solution that will result in Victory for the Armed Service and our country.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Those Generals and Admirals may have had more information when they were active duty but when they retire they are not within the same circle. I respect their opinion but I'm not going to blindly agree with them about a deal when I have the same amount of information they know. I will make up my own mind on this one.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see),
No matter what anyone's views are on this deal, there is A LOT of controversy. Perhaps 200 retired GO/FOs, trump the three dozen who originally supported the deal?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/retired-generals-admirals-urge-congress-reject-ira/
cc: LTC Stephen F., CPT Jack Durish, Capt (Join to see), COL Korey Jackson, SGT (Join to see), SSG Warren Swan, MSG Tom Earley, PVT James Strait, LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow, SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL, Maj (Join to see)
No matter what anyone's views are on this deal, there is A LOT of controversy. Perhaps 200 retired GO/FOs, trump the three dozen who originally supported the deal?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/retired-generals-admirals-urge-congress-reject-ira/
cc: LTC Stephen F., CPT Jack Durish, Capt (Join to see), COL Korey Jackson, SGT (Join to see), SSG Warren Swan, MSG Tom Earley, PVT James Strait, LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow, SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL, Maj (Join to see)
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC Jason Strickland I tend to take a contrarian view on a lot of things. I learned today that over 1000 rabbis in the US have signed on to a petition to block the treaty. I am NOT one of them.
I'm not sure what will happen in the end, but I stand by my previous statement that I have yet to see a viable alternative. Keeping the sanctions in place and maintaining the status quo will not change Khameini and Rouhani's minds. They'll just keep on making enriched Uranium and Plutonium and build their bomb.
Further War is not an answer either, for two reasons. One is that, right or wrong, Iran is battling ISIS. Given the US's refusal to truly fight ISIS we need every country who will, battling them to ensure that ISIS doesn't move into Europe in force. If they do it WILL BE WW 3...
The other issue is that a war with Iran will make OIF/OEF jointly look like a walk in the park.
This treaty may give Iran a lot, but it's better than any alternative that is out there...
I'm not sure what will happen in the end, but I stand by my previous statement that I have yet to see a viable alternative. Keeping the sanctions in place and maintaining the status quo will not change Khameini and Rouhani's minds. They'll just keep on making enriched Uranium and Plutonium and build their bomb.
Further War is not an answer either, for two reasons. One is that, right or wrong, Iran is battling ISIS. Given the US's refusal to truly fight ISIS we need every country who will, battling them to ensure that ISIS doesn't move into Europe in force. If they do it WILL BE WW 3...
The other issue is that a war with Iran will make OIF/OEF jointly look like a walk in the park.
This treaty may give Iran a lot, but it's better than any alternative that is out there...
2
2
0
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
WashingtonPost
WashingtonPost
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sgt Tom Cunnally, They will fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. It's a done deal and Obama won't can't or can't change it.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Not sure if this letter is too little too late??
The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.
“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states.
[Read the open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the deal]
The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.
“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states.
[Read the open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the deal]
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google