You know that guy. He’s the one who ruins perfectly mellow, useless dinner-party conversation with serious political talk, or brings a group of friends down with heavy subjects at lunch. Practically no one wants to talk about the so-called Iran nuclear deal or other weighty, complicated subjects at times when everyone should be joking, laughing, singing and having a great time.
I try really hard not to be that guy. I don’t want to be a “fun stealer.” I’d rather wait for more appropriate times to tackle the toughest, most morose subjects of the day.
Sometimes, I get sucked in, and it isn’t simply because someone appears to have committed the modern day Cardinal sin of posting incorrect information online — I put on my superhero cape to fix it, temporarily ignoring the vast amount of incorrect data, assumptions or misstated facts I might have typed out myself through the years.
Other times, a comment, subject or moment strikes such a chord with me, and I simply can’t help but voice my view. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — for whatever reason, called a nuclear “deal” — seems to be one of those subject areas for me.
It is much easier to have a conversation about whether certain provisions of the deal would be effective than getting into name-calling, emotional arguments about cultures and who is really bent on destroying America.
It seems like name-calling is the opposite of citing facts. If someone starts calling you names during a discussion of facts, not only are you probably way ahead on facts on the subject, you’re probably also avoiding the black-and-white, categorizing, labeling frenzy that passes for civilized dialogue these days.
There are a great deal of facts to learn about what is actually written in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I decided to read the entire 159-page document, in order to find out why there were so many opinions, and to see which of those opinions are based on items actually included or not included in the “deal.”
One could fill all the pages of a newspaper with analysis of the many elements of the plan, and whether the Iranian government and the myriad of other groups and organizations in the Middle East are even stable and trustworthy enough to discuss an accord of any type. Let’s take, for example, one of the provisions that’s actually in the deal.
Iran, according to one element of the plan, will continue to conduct nuclear enrichment research and development in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. I know this provision, by itself, doesn’t take into account inspection methods, hidden operations or well-funded factions of the government developing weapons-grade uranium without the knowledge of the Iranian government, but it is the first agreement to hold the Iranians accountable to anyone besides the U.S. or religious sects.
Another provision calls for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures as detailed in the JCPOA. The IAEA will be requested to provide regular updates to the Board of Governors, so its reports must be largely in layman’s terms, keeping the rest of us from wondering if the amount of, say, centrifuges is really in the spirit of the agreement.
This will enable the U.N. to either establish a pattern of hard, regular questions for the Iranians, or a violation would be a reason for a large coalition of nations to handle the situation more forcefully.
Many Americans don’t seem to have time to read up on facts before forming views. But if we did, we could have a fun, a light conversation about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Contact Jason W. Brooks at 641-792-3121 ext. 6532 or jbrooks@newtondailynews.com