"The whole deal depends on Iran, a country that has never shown any interest in adhering to international norms and obligations, suddenly cooperating with the terms of this nuclear weapons agreement," the Nevada Republican said in a press statement.
"In addition, I am not convinced that this Administration is willing to take decisive action in the event that Iran does not comply with one of the many requirements of this deal. We saw that play out in Syria when the President ignored his own 'red line' on chemical weapons usage, sending a signal to the world that our warnings have no teeth."
The deal negotiated with Iran by the United States and partner nations would end economic sanctions against its regime in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program and agreements for inspections to ensure it is not developing nuclear weapons. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry led the U.S. negotiating team in Switzerland that reached the agreement. - Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/2/15
Again, not surprised. As for Heck's opponent, former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D. NV), she is on the right side of this issue:
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto has come out in favor of the nuclear agreement with Iran.
The former Nevada attorney general announced her position on Thursday, after what she described as countless hours talking with experts and reading opinions about the deal.
She said she's concluded that the agreement will do more to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon than the status quo. - Las Vegas Sun, 9/3/15
Here is Cortez Masto's full statement on the Iran Nuclear Deal on her campaign website:
Las Vegas, NV – Former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto released the following statement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:
“Over the course of the previous weeks, I have spent countless hours reading through documents, analysis, and differing opinions on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I have reached out and discussed this agreement with experts who support and oppose the agreement, people of goodwill from both the United States and Israel.
“After an exhaustive review, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to support this agreement. At this moment in time, Iran is two to three months away from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Under this agreement, the Iran nuclear program will be blocked for at least 15 years.
“Furthermore, this agreement will reduce the total number of Iran’s centrifuges by two-thirds, from 19,000 today to 6,104. The agreement will also limit the level of enrichment to 3.67 percent for 15 years, far below weapons grade, which is about 90 percent. The deal will also eliminate Iran’s stockpile of dangerous highly enriched uranium, and even limits their low enriched uranium stockpile to under 300 kg, down from a 10,000 kg stockpile today.
“I do have concerns with elements of the deal. But the question comes down to this: What’s more likely to prevent a nuclear Iran? Is it sticking with the current course, in which Iran is just months away from having the capacity to build a bomb? Or will blocking Iran’s ability to have a bomb for fifteen years make us safer? I choose to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb in the foreseeable future and to have inspectors blanket their country for 15 years learning more about their program and future ways to stop it.
“To ensure compliance, this agreement imposes the toughest negotiated inspection program in history. And nothing in this agreement prevents us from taking military action if Iran cheats on the agreement. In fact, I believe that Congress should pass legislation now making it clear that under this President or the next, if Iran makes a break for a nuclear bomb, they will not be met with more sanctions or more talks. If they break this last chance at diplomacy, all options, including the use of military force, will be on the table to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. The United States will never allow a nuclear-armed Iran.
“Looking beyond this agreement, Iran’s non-nuclear behavior – such as supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and Assad in Syria - is unacceptable. That’s why sanctions around those activities should and will stay in place.
“We are living in dangerous times. The security of America and our allies, especially Israel, depend on what our leaders do to stop brutal regimes from obtaining the ability to harm us. As someone who has spent her life working to protect the security of Nevadans, I take that responsibility extremely serious. People on both sides of this agreement have the security of America’s interest at heart and everyone has the same goal, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
It's clear why this race is so important and the difference between both candidates couldn't be more clear. Click here to donate and get involved with Cortez Masto's campaign: