American Scientists Announce Support for Iranian Nuclear Deal

The recent Iranian nuclear deal has dominated the U.S. news and political scene over the past several months and becoming a major talking point in the recent Republican primary debate with candidates across the board pledging to return to negotiations and increase restrictions on the Iranians.

Many of the candidates and other detractors of the deal, see Iranian nuclear advancement as a threat to Homeland Security should the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. However, members of the scientific community do not necessarily share this opinion.

29 U.S. scientists sent a letter to the White House congratulating President Obama and lending support to the deal. These scientists, many of them possessing Nobel laureates as well as high level security clearance necessary for accessing information related to the design of nuclear weapons, believe that the deal is, “technically sound, stringent, and innovative.”

The letter comes alongside a technical assessment conducted by the scientists that some may find worrying. According to their professional judgment, Iran was mere weeks away from developing fuel for nuclear weapons prior to a scaling back of its nuclear program as part of an interim agreement in January of 2014.

However, the scientists contended that the ban on the research of nuclear weapons technology and other stipulations that will require continued verification that the Iranian government is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons up until 2040 have made a huge impact on peace in the region.

The deal, which is currently under a 60-day review process in Congress, is representative of a powerful step towards a peaceful future with Iran. In an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama compared the Iranian deal to the diplomatic relationships established between the U.S and China during the Nixon administration. He hopes that a peaceful resolution between the U.S. and Iran, without giving away the ability to respond forcefully if necessary, would be better than a violent military response for preserving peace.