The Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal
|
The Low-Information Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal Pulls a Full Chelsea Clinton, The Blaze
Jan. 15, 2016 Alasdair Denvil
“……..Didn’t you hear? Iran has poured concrete into their nuclear reactor at Arak (so that it no longer generatesweapons-grade plutonium), it’s put 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium – 98 percent of all it possessed – on a boat to Russia, and it is dismantling two-thirds of its uranium-enriching centrifuges. If you’re an opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal, there’s a good chance you didn’t know any of that. Because, as often as the deal has been pilloried by critics such as Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh,Thomas Sowell, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, they hardly ever mention that Iran has had to settle for a mere 660 pounds of low-enriched uranium, far too little for a nuclear arsenal. No, you hardly ever hear these critics spell out the concessionsIran has already made. Instead, we keep hearing that “we get nothing” out of the deal, that President Barack Obama is“giving” Iran the bomb, even that he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon (which certainly explains why he unleashed theStuxnet virus to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities). Funnily enough, the same pundits who rail against “low-information voters” – people who’ve been “dumbed down” by media misinformation to the point that they “don’t know what they think they know” – have generated exactly that level of opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal. They’ve devised a selective information gap just like what they (often correctly) berate the mainstream media for creating….. if you’re going to oppose the deal, you have a responsibility do it honestly, based on giving people the full story about what it involves, rather than covering up details that don’t support your case…….. After all, it’s hard to see how Iran could fake giving away 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium. And even if you take the position that there’s more wrong with the deal than right about it, rejecting the deal would have involved risks of its own. How would Iran be further from getting a nuclear weapon if it held on to 11 tons of enriched uranium, kept running thousands of additional centrifuges, retained a nuclear reactor that spits out weapons-grade plutonium, and were allowed to keep its known nuclear supply chain free from prying eyes?…. the notion that the deal simply green-lights Iran’s nuclear program, giving them the go-ahead to get a nuke, is just flat-out untrue. It’s a blatant falsehood……http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-low-information-opposition-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal-pulls-a-full-chelsea-clinton/ |
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (249)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Leave a comment