Will the world and America ever reach the point of relative peace?

When will national and international discord and conflict end?

Sadly, conflict and war have always been a part of humankind, since the beginning of time.

Yet, last week, the United States and Iran reached what may culminate in a nuclear deal, resulting in the preservation of current and future lives.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani praised the potential deal, calling it a "day that will remain in the historical memory of the Iranian nation."

"Some think that we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers," he said. "We say it is neither of those. There is a third way: We can have cooperation with the world.

"Despite criticism from the Republican Party, President Barack Obama said the deal ensures extensive oversight into the actions of Iran.

"Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," he said.

How and why did we get to the point we are at with Iran?

Our history with Iran dates back to the era of British control of Iran. It's no surprise our involvement with the nation was spurred by "liquid gold," or oil, and began with Presidents Truman and Roosevelt.

It wasn't until the election of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeqh in 1951 and his decision to nationalize the oil reserves that America became interested in the nation.

Mossadeqh s decision to nationalize the oil reserves led to a coup initiated by the United States, his eventual overthrow in 1953 and the installation of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

"The CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeqh, which had planned to nationalize Irans's oil industry and subsequently provided organizational and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah," writes Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed in his book "Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq."

Although the Shah was favorable to U.S. interests, as time has progressed, Iran has acquiesced less to the requests of America.

In recent years, Iran has asserted its autonomous right to develop nuclear weapons, with the United States often threatening military action if Iran takes a visible, serious step toward creating and deploying such weapons.

I can't help but wonder why it's improper for one country, such as Iran, to develop and harbor nuclear weapons, while it's permissible for another, like the United States, to possess one of the largest and most dangerous stockpiles in the world.

I certainly applaud America's more direct stand against nuclear and biological weapons; however, I believe the United States should also make an effort to show the world it, too, is doing its part to reduce such deadly weapons.

We have yet to see what the result of last week's preliminary agreement between America and Iran will be.

Will it ultimately satisfy the Iranians and will they comply?

Will the agreement appease the Republican Party, which continues to remain at odds with Obama's foreign and domestic policies?

Opponents argue the deal provides Iran with too much freedom, without requiring serious steps to remove weapons.

"The initial details appear to be very troubling," U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said. "Tehran is gaining international acceptance of its nuclear ambitions and will receive significant sanctions relief without making serious concessions."

Those in opposition also argue the deal does little to stop the bloodshed that continues at the hands of ISIS.

More importantly, America must worry about how a deal will impact one of its greatest allies – Israel.

In a Facebook post April 2, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed grave concern with the proposed deal.

"This deal would legitimize Iran's nuclear program, bolster Iran's economy and increase Iran's aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond," he wrote. "Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it. It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war."

He rather suggested a more forceful approach by the United States.

"The alternative is standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran until a better deal is achieved," he wrote.

Again, we need to also consider the historical context of our alliance with Israel, one of the world's largest exporters of arms (trailing the U.S., Russia, Germany, China, France, United Kingdom, Spain, Ukraine and Italy), along with its treatment of neighboring Palestine.

Personally, I think a diplomatic agreement is much more preferable to deploying Navy warships, troops and Marines to Iran.

When is the last time might by military force made right? Did force initiated by America bring unity and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq?

As a nation, we truly need to begin rebuilding the diplomatic bridges we have destroyed over the past 15 years.

Let's show the world by our actions we wholeheartedly believe in the concept and practice of peace and democracy.

Let's put an end to war and conflict.

Rather than invest billions into a war machine, let's use those monies to ensure the health and prosperity of our nation's veterans, neediest children, the homeless and our senior citizen population.

We can if we want to.

Or, we can remain fixated on the allure of war.

Ensuring the preservation of human life is far more valuable than destroying it.

Mark Reccek

editorial assistant

Whitehall-Coplay Press

Northampton Press

Catasauqua Press