Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal. Are They Right In Doing So?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:58:51 -0400

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

Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

In an open letter, former brass representing every branch of the military called the pact “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 12 at 2015 4:01 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:01:08 -0400

“the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Really? If you read the agreement you will find ht all it truly does is give them billions of dollars and a timeline for achieving a Nuke.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Aug 12 at 2015 4:01 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:01:11 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 12 at 2015 4:08 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:08:34 -0400

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...

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 12 at 2015 4:10 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:10:18 -0400

That's the thing about generals and admirals. When it comes to this stuff, they're SUPPOSED to be smarter than us. Even Bill O'Reilly backs the damn deal because there are no alternatives. WWIII or an economically invested Iran. Those are your choices and Iran knows it.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 12 at 2015 4:28 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:28:44 -0400

I get the feeling someone reach out and "encouraged" their support

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 12 at 2015 4:35 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:35:33 -0400

We may like or not like the current plan but we've hit the point where we can't wind the clock back. We all hate having to clean up someone else's mess. It may be the lessor mess down the road. Who knows? The USA cannot go much anything alone anymore. We've shot our wad the past 50 years being the policeman of the Earth, racking up toxic levels of debt.

So like others, we need to be prepared to follow through and need other nations chipping in to do it as well. Also, I'm waiting for a Presidential candidate to say our military will be a "Fee for Service" organization. Other countries chip in resources to protect sea lanes etc. or pay us to do it. Same thing should apply for things we support. If we don't see much service from the UN, then we shouldn't be paying for it. If Trump got hold of this idea, he'd likely go too far with it suggesting we figure out the pro rata cost for the last 50 years and write off shares of the National Debt for it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 4:52 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:52:27 -0400

I have tried to find out as much as possible about the deal. Whether it had a chance in hell to accomplish it's objectives. Personally I don't care for the deal. Was it our best option? Was our only other option war? I really don't know the answers to those questions. But I do know the big reason Iran was at the table was because they needed the sanctions lifted. I'm not really even sure Iran was that close to a nuclear weapon. Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. (Israel has more capable ballistic missiles, but fewer in number and type.) Most were acquired from foreign sources, notably North Korea. The Islamic Republic is the only country to develop a 2,000-km missile without first having a nuclear weapons capability.
Iran is still dependent on foreign suppliers for key ingredients, components and equipment, but it should eventually be able to develop long-range missiles over time, including an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile or ICBM. The military utility of Iran’s current ballistic missiles is limited because of poor accuracy, so missiles are not likely to be decisive if armed with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. But Tehran could use its missiles as a political or psychological weapon to terrorize an adversary’s cities and pressure its government. Iran should not be able to strike Western Europe before 2014 or the United States before 2020—at the earliest. Iran’s space program, which includes the successful launch of a small, crude satellite into low earth orbit using the Safir carrier rocket, proves the country’s growing ambitions and technical prowess.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 12 at 2015 4:56 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:56:23 -0400

No these retired flag officers are not correct SGT Private RallyPoint Member. 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.

Response by SFC Douglas Duckett made Aug 12 at 2015 5:00 PM

SFC Douglas Duckett — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:00:00 -0400

“the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” Translated; We have a very weak POTUS who has no balls and will not stand strong or use force to keep the peace. END OF STATEMENT, OUT.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 5:12 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:12:48 -0400

The deal to me, based on what has been revealed, is about as smart as releasing 5 terrorists for one deserter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 5:26 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:26:22 -0400

They must have forgotten how diplomacy and appeasement worked on Hitler.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Aug 12 at 2015 5:43 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:43:56 -0400

I know one of the Generals who supports the Iran Nuclear Agreement General Joe Hoar USMCret..We went to the same high school in MA...He more than likely studied it & decided this agreement was a better option than going to war.. But I wonder how many Generals who are active support this agreement with Iran??

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 5:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:59:42 -0400

Nice propaganda, good try POTUS.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Aug 12 at 2015 6:27 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:27:27 -0400

Yes, no, maybe? Does anyone...especially those who made the agreement...even know what it says? What little we know, make it sound like a terrible agreement but who knows?

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Aug 12 at 2015 7:18 PM

Cpl Chris Rice — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:18:34 -0400

I would bet money that had these generals come out and stated that this was a bad deal this would’ve still been posted, but the respondents this post would say that we should listen to them because their generals. I especially like the part how everybody keeps saying that the deal is secret, and you cannot find it, but I was able to find it on the White House website in about five minutes. Here is the link:

https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action-5cdd9b320fd

I especially like how everybody keeps saying that it's going to be the end of the United States, but even famous people who criticize it will admit they haven't read it, it's only 159 pages, and if it's as bad as all of you been saying it is it would be worth learning what is actually in its you can articulate your point.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — The Iran Deal

Vienna, 14 July 2015

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Aug 12 at 2015 8:27 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:27:33 -0400

Makes little sense, but, just because THEY think it's a good idea, doesn't make it one.

Response by COL Korey Jackson made Aug 12 at 2015 8:32 PM

COL Korey Jackson — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:32:45 -0400

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.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 12 at 2015 9:59 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:59:27 -0400

I venture to say that we have at least two submarines near Iran and near Korea. The fact is they know we can bring a lot of pain directly onto their nuclear infrastructure. If you let Iran fail, which I believe they will. Then the strongest sanctions will be vilified.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 12 at 2015 11:49 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:49:01 -0400

No one who opposes the deal has proposed a single valid alternative. All they've done is throw darts at it since Obama pushed it through. I would be willing to bet that the same kind of opposition was faced, for instance, when Nixon signed the treaty with China...

The fact is that the party opposing the President always opposes without constructive additions. In this case, they oppose, it would seem, out of Xenophobia more than anything else...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 14 at 2015 4:20 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:20:27 -0400

They are the Historical Background Knowledge Base. They were tasked during their Careers with Monitoring what went on in Iran just as I was. I agree with them and approve of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 14 at 2015 11:09 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:09:30 -0400

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?

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Aug 15 at 2015 4:15 PM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:15:32 -0400

I think we should go to war...at least I know I won't have to die for the warmongering of the GOP. I certainly hope you die-hard GOP supporter get the opportunity to go over to Iran and get kill.

Response by SSG Robert Spina made Aug 17 at 2015 6:34 PM

SSG Robert Spina — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:34:00 -0400

DEAD WRONG IF YOU APPROVE OF THIS DEAL THEN WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THAT IRAN CAN BE TRUSTED AND IF YOU BELIEVE THEY CAN BE TRUSTED THEN I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN TO SELL YOU

Response by CPL Eric Allen made Aug 17 at 2015 10:40 PM

CPL Eric Allen — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:40:13 -0400

How much money are they receiving from this endorsed deal with their name on it

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Aug 17 at 2015 11:33 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:33:40 -0400

Cue someone saying they are all stooges.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 11:41 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:41:36 -0400

I don't think attempting a diplomatic solution would necessarily hurt but as the famous Gen. "Mad Dog" Mattis has said, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." I think that sums it up. Attempt a diplomatic solution and when it fails, and it will fail because Iran will build nuclear weapons again, then we go and dominate them to put it kindly. Anyone trying to harm US Forces or America, needs to remember how we deal with that. When Iran starts developing the means to harm us, squash it and then like a bug. Does anyone else agree? If not, why do you disagree?

Response by SSG James Arlington made Aug 17 at 2015 11:52 PM

SSG James Arlington — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:52:30 -0400

Iran is,and will continue to build a bomb with sanctions. Ready for war? I want to see every Republican war hawk escort their wealhy children to the recruiter's office!

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Aug 27 at 2015 11:13 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:13:13 -0400

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.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 27 at 2015 12:30 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:30:25 -0400

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

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Aug 27 at 2015 7:30 PM

LTC Jason Strickland — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:30:36 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member,
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 Private RallyPoint Member, COL Korey Jackson, SGT Private RallyPoint Member, SSG Warren Swan, MSG Tom Earley, PVT James Strait, LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow, SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL, Maj Private RallyPoint Member

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 27 at 2015 7:56 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:56:27 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member, no just because a service member is selected to be a Flag officer does not mean they necessarily have the wisdom, background on Iranian ..., and a solid understanding about nuclear weapons technology and how it relates to nuclear energy.
As many have already pointed out on this discussion, 200 other retired flag officers have come out against this Iranian nuclear agreement. Sheer numbers are not important; however, there is much to be said for Congress to rethink blinding following Secretary Kerry's and President Obama's lead to get an agreement with Iran.
Holding Iran to continued economic sanctions and enforcing those restrictions on European and American companies to keep them from skirting the restrictions could go a long way to slowing down their nuclear ambitions. Iran is hell-bent to develop nuclear weapons so that they can exert their influence over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria and threaten the existence of Israel. Thank you LTC Jason Strickland for tagging me into this discussion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/retired-generals-admirals-urge-congress-reject-ira/

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 31 at 2015 11:46 AM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:46:12 -0400

I see that these Generals and Admirals have done their research and made a decision based on probabilities and common sense as oppose to ignorance and fear; it is a good decision.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Aug 31 at 2015 1:08 PM

PO1 Ron Clark — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:31 -0400

I agree with the upper echelon on this one, for they are more privy to information than even the ones in the field. They are armed with daily/hourly status reports on the situation depending upon their job and their "need to know" status. They know things they won't and sometimes can't even discuss with the common service member. Use their experience and knowledge to our greatest success is what I say.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 1:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:59:05 -0400

Very suspicious all of it. This deal may have stopped the creation of the weapon now, but has open the door to uncontrolled development of a delivery system. So, when this deal expires, Iran goes from zero to 1000% having the nuke and a very efficient method of delivery over night.

Response by SFC Graig Yarbrough made Sep 3 at 2015 5:11 PM

SFC Graig Yarbrough — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:11:08 -0400

Does this deal (actually treaty) have anything to do with the reality that Iran is already killing our military personnel through their proxies of Hezbollah and Hamas? These people have sworn our destruction. What makes ANYONE think they can be trusted for anything, and that they will not lie and cheat? Remember, they are an Islamic state. This isn't about national security. It is about politics. It is about this president's legacy, and it is going to result in a lot of deaths. I'll tell you how you associate with these people. You tell them, no nuclear weapons ever. You tell them they will stop killing out military through their proxies. You tell them they will release all political prisoners. You tell them, if they can convincingly demonstrate this, you might talk.